output
stringclasses 2
values | input
stringlengths 356
2.18k
| instruction
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
1
|
In my view, this likely harm — 170,000 behavioral disturbances, including 8,000 instances of temporary hearing loss; and 564 Level A harms, including 436 injuries to a beaked whale population numbering only 1,121 — cannot be lightly dismissed, even in the face of an alleged risk to the effectiveness of the Navy’s 14 training exercises. There is no doubt that the training exercises serve critical interests. But those interests do not authorize the Navy to violate a statutory command, especially when recourse to the Legislature remains open. “Of course, military interests do not always trump other considerations, and we have not held that they do.”Ante, at 26.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if individualistic reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Individualistic reasoning is defined as when considerations such as personal autonomy, individual rights, and entrepreneurial freedom influence the opinion
|
1
|
In light of the likely, substantial harm to the environment, NRDC’s almost inevitable success on the merits of its claim that NEPA required the Navy to prepare an EIS, the history of this litigation, and the public interest, I cannot agree that the mitigation measures the District Court imposed signal an abuse of discretion. Cf. Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 545 (1987) (“Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i. e., irreparable. If such injury is sufficiently likely, therefore, the balance of harms will usually favor the issuance of an injunction to protect the environment.”).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Respondents advance strong arguments that activities that cause minimal or unforeseeable harm will not violate the Act as construed in the “harm” regulation. Respondents, however, present a facial challenge to the regulation. Cf. Anderson v. Edwards, 514 U. S. 143, 155-156, n. 6 (1995); INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U. S. 183, 188 (1991). Thus, they ask us to invalidate the Secretary’s understanding of “harm” in every circumstance, even when an actor knows that an activity, such as draining a pond, would actually result in the extinction of a listed species by destroying its habitat. Given Congress’ clear expression of the ESA’s broad purpose to protect endangered and threatened wildlife, the Secretary’s definition of “harm” is reasonable.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Nor does the Act’s inclusion of the § 5 land acquisition authority and the § 7 directive to federal agencies to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat alter our conclusion. Respondents’ argument that the Government lacks any incentive to purchase land under §5 when it can simply prohibit takings under § 9 ignores the practical considerations that attend enforcement of the ESA. Purchasing habitat lands may well cost the Government less in many circumstances than pursuing civil or criminal penalties. In addition, the § 5 procedure allows for protection of habitat before the seller’s activity has harmed any endangered animal, whereas the Government cannot enforce the § 9 prohibition until an animal has actually been killed or injured. The Secretary may also find the § 5 authority useful for preventing'modification of land that is not yet but may in the future become habitat for an endangered or threatened species. The §7 directive applies only to the Federal Government, whereas the § 9 prohibition applies to “any person.” Section 7 imposes a broad, affirmative duty to avoid adverse habitat modifications that §9 does not replicate, and §7 does not limit its admonition to habitat modification that “actually kills or injures wildlife.” Conversely, §7 contains limitations that §9 does not, applying only to actions “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species,” 16 U. S. C. § 1536(a)(2), and to modifications of habitat that has been designated “critical” pursuant to § 4, 16 U. S. C. § 1533(b)(2). Any overlap that § 5 or §7 may have with §9 in particular cases is unexceptional, see, e. g., Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 24, and n. 2 (1983), and simply reflects the broad purpose of the Act set out in § 2 and acknowledged in TVA v. Hill.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Our conclusion that the Secretary’s definition of “harm rests on a permissible construction of the ESA gains further support from the legislative history of the statute. The Committee Reports accompanying the bills that became the ESA do not specifically discuss the meaning of “harm,” but they make clear that Congress intended “take” to apply broadly to cover indirect as well as purposeful actions. The Senate Report stressed that “‘[t]ake’ is defined ... in the broadest possible manner to include every conceivable way in which a person can ‘take’ or attempt to ‘take’ any fish or wildlife.” S. Rep. No. 93-307, p. 7 (1973). The House Report stated that “the broadest possible terms” were used to define restrictions on takings. H. R. Rep. No. 93-412, p. 15 (1973). The House Report underscored the breadth of the “take” definition by noting that it included “harassment, whether intentional or not.” Id., at 11 (emphasis added). The Report explained that the definition “would allow, for example, the Secretary to regulate or prohibit the activities of birdwatchers where the effect of those activities might disturb the birds and make it difficult for them to hatch or raise their young.” Ibid. These comments, ignored in the dissent’s welcome but selective foray into legislative history, see post, at 726-729, support the Secretary’s interpretation that the term “take” in § 9 reached far more than the deliberate actions of hunters and trappers.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Congress clearly did not intend that cost and disruption of the community were to be ignored by the Secretary.But the very existence of the statutes indicates that protection of parkland was to be given paramount importance. The few green havens that are public parks were not to be lost unless there were truly unusual factors present in a particular case or the cost or community disruption resulting from alternative routes reached extraordinary magnitudes. If the statutes are to have any meaning, the Secretary cannot approve the destruction of parkland unless he finds that alternative routes present unique problems.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes—fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water—whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger—must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled. That does not mean that the judiciary takes over the managerial functions from the federal agency. It merely means that before these priceless bits of Americana (such as a valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so transformed as to be reduced to the eventual rubble of our urban environment, the voice of the existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe and portage the Quetico Superior in Minnesota, certainly should have standing to defend those natural wonders before courts or agencies, though they live 3,000 miles away. Those who merely are caught up in environmental news or propaganda and flock to defend these waters or areas may be treated differently. That is why these environmental issues should be tendered by the inanimate object itself. Then there will be assurances that all of the forms of life which it represents will stand before the court—the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well as the trout in the streams. Those inarticulate members of the ecological group cannot speak. But those people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire ecological community.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
The critical question of ‘standing' would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. See Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?— Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, 45 S.Cal.L.Rev. 450 (1972). This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
In the 1960's, when the problems associated with the burgeoning development began to receive significant attention, jurisdiction over the Basin, which occupies 501 square miles, was shared by the States of California and Nevada, five counties, several municipalities, and the Forest Service of the Federal Government. In 1968, the legislatures of the two States adopted the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, see 1968 Cal. Stats., no. 998, p.1900, § 1; 1968 Nev. Stats. p. 4, which Congress approved in 1969, Pub.L. 91–148, 83 Stat. 360. The compact set goals for the protection and preservation of the lake and created TRPA as the agency assigned “to coordinate and regulate development in the Basin and to conserve its natural resources.” Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 394, 99 S.Ct. 1171, 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
0
|
In summary, we reject the district court’s conclusion that the EPA’s determination is unreviewable. Nonetheless, we conclude, as did the district court in its alternative holding, that the EPA did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in preventing Erdman from using agency time to give deposition testimony on Appellants’ behalf in private litigation.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
0
|
The study of the project has covered both many years and many thousands of pages of paper. The various statements, assessments, stipulations, and agreements establish a comprehensive, good faith, objective, and reasonable presentation of the subject areas as mandated by NEPA and the other statutes with which we are concerned. The Secretary has the responsibility for balancing the many factors pertaining to the project. The court may set aside his decision “only for substantial procedural or substantive reasons as mandated by statute.” Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1219, 55 L.Ed.2d 460. No such reasons exist in the instant case.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
0
|
Even assuming that this degree of federal financial involvement would not qualify as a major federal action, we think that, in view of the LEAA’s overall involvement in the promotion and planning of the Center, as well as the cumulative impact of the proposed federal action, the NEPA definition of “major federal action” has been satisfied. See CEQ Guidelines, § 5(b), 36 Eed.Reg. 7724 (1971).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
0
|
We expected to need a facility able to serve all golfers and expected an increase in facility use. The private clubhouse building would have to be modified in order to provide appropriate public access and sufficient men's and women’s locker rooms and showers, day use food and beverage facilities, a pro shop, and so forth. Reception and lounge spaces were not desirable for our purposes. We discussed whether the building was large enough, whether the layout was adequate, what renovation would have to be done, and other constraints that posed difficulties in the context of use by the increased number of public golfers to be served. Based upon our discussion and consideration of these various factors, we determined that the existing building would require renovation. And, we expected such renovation to be costly. We expected some concern by the residential neighbors of the building to our expanded use and activity in the building. Additionally, we did not control the building and it was not being offered for our use. We expected that acquisition would require congressional authorization, and, or course, that we would have to pay fair market value for the property. Given these reasons and the club's clearly expressed desire to remain a private club, we determined that use of the private clubhouse was not a viable option worthy of a detailed analysis or worth pursuing as a practical matter.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
0
|
This means that the district court afforded plaintiffs the wrong relief. Instead of enjoining all construction work on Third Street until the federal government has jumped through the hoops needed to fund a federal project, the district court should have enjoined Goshen from seeking or accepting federal reimbursement. In other words, because thése federal laws do not apply to local projects funded by local tax revenues, and Goshen insists that the widening of Third Street is a genuinely local project, it satisfies all of the federal statutes just to hold the City to its representation. If Goshen files with the court a formal undertaking that will be embodied in an injunction (and thus enforceable through the contempt power) never to seek or accept any federal reimbursement, direct or indirect, for the cost of widening Third Street, the City should be allowed to proceed with the work.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
I disagree. As an initial matter, I do not find it as easy as Justice Scalia does to dismiss the notion that significant impairment of breeding injures living creatures. To raze the last remaining ground on which the piping plover currently breeds, thereby making it impossible for any piping plovers to reproduce, would obviously injure the population (causing the species’ extinction in a generation). But by completely preventing breeding, it would also injure the individual living bird, in the same way that sterilizing the creature injures the individual living bird. To “injure” is, among other things, “to impair.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 623 (1983). One need not subscribe to theories of “psychic harm,” cf. post, at 734-735, n. 5, to recognize that to make it impossible for an animal to reproduce is to impair its most essential physical functions and to render that animal, and its genetic material, biologically obsolete. This, in my view, is actual injury.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
In any event, even if impairing an animal’s ability to breed were not, in and of itself, an injury to that animal, interference with breeding can cause an animal to suffer other, perhaps more obvious, kinds of injury. The regulation has clear application, for example, to significant habitat modification that kills or physically injures animals which, because they are in a vulnerable breeding state, do not or cannot flee or defend themselves, or to environmental pollutants that cause an animal to suffer physical complications during gestation. Breeding, feeding, and sheltering are what animals do. If significant habitat modification, by interfering with these essential behaviors, actually kills or injures an animal protected by the Act, it causes “harm” within the meaning of the regulation. In contrast to Justice & alia, I do not read the regulation’s “breeding” reference to vitiate or somehow to qualify the clear actual death or injury requirement, or to suggest that the regulation contemplates extension to nonexistent animals.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Unlike SWANCC and like Riverside Bayview, the cases before us today concern wetlands that are adjacent to “navigable bodies of water [or] their tributaries,” 474 U. S., at 123. Specifically, these wetlands abut tributaries of traditionally navigable waters. As we recognized in Riverside Bayview, the Corps has concluded that such wetlands play important roles in maintaining the quality of their adjacent waters, see id., at 134-135, and consequently in the waters downstream. Among other things, wetlands can offer “nesting, spawning, rearing and resting sites for aquatic or land species”; “serve as valuable storage areas for storm and flood waters”; and provide “significant water purification functions.” 33 CFR § 320.4(b)(2) (2005); 474 U. S., at 134-135. These values are hardly “independent” ecological considerations as the plurality would have it, ante, at 741 — instead, they are integral to the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” 33 U. S. C. § 1251(a). Given that wetlands serve these important water quality roles and given the ambiguity inherent in the phrase “waters of the United States,” the Corps has reasonably interpreted its jurisdiction to cover nonisolated wetlands.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Lake Tahoe's exceptional clarity is attributed to the absence of algae that obscures the waters of most other lakes. Historically, the lack of nitrogen and phosphorous, which nourish the growth of algae, has ensured the transparency of its waters. Unfortunately, the lake's pristine state has deteriorated rapidly over the past 40 years; increased land development in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Basin) has threatened the noble sheet of blue water beloved by Twain and countless others. 34 F. Supp. 2d, at 1230. As the District Court found, [d]ramatic decreases in clarity first began to be noted in the late 1950's/early 1960's, shortly after development at the lake began in earnest. The lake's unsurpassed beauty, it seems, is the wellspring of its undoing.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
First, I agree with Judge Wald that biodiversity is important to our understanding of ESA and its relation to interstate commerce. As Judge Wald's opinion notes: Every species is part of an ecosystem, an expert specialist of its kind, tested relentlessly as it spreads its influence through the food web. To remove it is to entrain changes in other species, raising the populations of some, reducing or even extinguishing others, risking a downward spiral of a larger assemblage.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Perhaps the strongest statements about interconnectedness come from scientists, scholars, and regulators working in the field of conservation biology who are critical of the species-by-species, reaction-to-crisis approach taken by the Endangered Species Act. They understand that species protection issues cannot be separated from those of ecosystem health.) (footnotes omitted). Some studies show, for example, that the mere presence of diverse species within an ecosystem (biodiversity) by itself contributes to the ecosystem's fecundity. See Yvonne Baskin, Ecologists Dare to Ask: How Much Does Diversity Matter? 264 Science 202 (1994). The Congress recognized the interconnection of the various species and the ecosystems when it declared that the essential purpose of ESA, which protects endangered species, is in fact 'to protect the ecosystem upon which we and other species depend.' H.R. Rep. No. 93-412, at 10 (1973); see also 16 U.S.C. Section(s) 1531 (finding that endangered species 'are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value') (emphasis added); cf. 16 U.S.C. Section(s) 1361(5)(b) (congressional finding in support of Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 that 'marine mammals . . . affect the balance of marine ecosystems in a manner which is important to other animals and other animal products which move in interstate commerce, and that the protection and conservation of marine mammals and their habitats is therefore necessary to insure the continuing availability of those products which move in interstate commerce'). Given the interconnectedness of species and ecosystems, it is reasonable to conclude that the extinction of one species affects others and their ecosystems and that the protection of a purely intrastate species (like the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly) will therefore substantially affect land and objects that are involved in interstate commerce. There is, therefore, 'a rational basis' for concluding that the 'taking' of endangered species 'substantially affects' interstate commerce so that section 9(a)(1) is within the Congress's Commerce Clause authority. See Lopez, 115 S.Ct. at 1629.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Second, the broad purpose of the ESA supports the Secretary's decision to extend protection against activities that cause the precise harms Congress enacted the statute to avoid. In TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 (1978), we described the Act as 'the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.' Id., at 180. Whereas predecessor statutes enacted in 1966 and 1969 had not contained any sweeping prohibition against the taking of endangered species except on federal lands, see id., at 175, the 1973 Act applied to all land in the United States and to the Nation's territorial seas. As stated in § 2 of the Act, among its central purposes is 'to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved .... ' 16 U. S. C. § 1531(b).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
Faced with such a problem of defining the bounds of its regulatory authority, an agency may appropriately look to the legislative history and underlying policies of its statutory grants of authority. Neither of these sources provides unambiguous guidance for the Corps in this case, but together they do support the reasonableness of the Corps' approach of defining adjacent wetlands as “waters” within the meaning of § 404(a). Section 404 originated as part of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which constituted a comprehensive legislative attempt “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” CWA § 101, 33 U.S.C. § 1251. This objective incorporated a broad, systemic view of the goal of maintaining and improving water quality: as the House Report on the legislation put it, ‘the word integrity ... refers to a condition in which the natural structure and function of ecosystems is [are] maintained.’ H.R.Rep. No. 92–911, p. 76 (1972). Protection of aquatic ecosystems, Congress recognized, demanded broad federal authority to control pollution, for ‘[w]ater moves in hydrologic cycles and it is essential that discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.’ S.Rep. No. 92–414, p. 77 (1972), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1972, pp. 3668, 3742.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
1
|
As it was finally passed, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 represented the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation. Its stated purposes were ‘to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved,’ and ‘to provide a program for the conservation of such . . . species . . . .’ 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) (1976 ed.). In furtherance of these goals, Congress expressly stated in § 2(c) that ‘all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species . . . .’ 16 U.S.C. § 1531(c) (1976 ed.). (Emphasis added.) Lest there be any ambiguity as to the meaning of this statutory directive, the Act specifically defined “conserve” as meaning ‘to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.’ § 1532(2). (Emphasis added.) Aside from § 7, other provisions indicated the seriousness with which Congress viewed this issue: Virtually all dealings with endangered species, including taking, possession, transportation, and sale, were prohibited, 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (1976 ed.), except in extremely narrow circumstances, see § 1539(b). The Secretary was also given extensive power to develop regulations and programs for the preservation of endangered and threatened species.25 § 1533(d). Citizen involvement was encouraged by the Act, with provisions allowing interested persons to petition the Secretary to list a species as endangered or threatened, § 1533(c)(2), see n. 11, supra, and bring civil suits in United States district courts to force compliance with any provision of the Act, §§ 1540(c) and (g).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if ecological reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Ecological reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the value of non-human life, species, ecosystems, parks, wildlands, wilderness influence the opinion
|
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 1