WSP03664 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Sobeck is assistant chief, Wildlife and Mari"e Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Di~lision, United States Department of juslice, in Washington, D. C. 30 E f publicized civil citizens suits are also a com- n orcement ~~~:end effective tool to halt violations of the Consider a joint federal and state highway construction ptoject to widen IntetState 5 south of San Diego. Prior to the stan of construction, FWS determined through an ESA S; 7 "consul- tation" that the only way to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of two endangered birds, the California least tern and the light- footed clapper rail, was to ensure the future protection of 188 acres of Sweetwater Marsh located adjacent to the project and one of the few remaining extensive stretches of relatively undisturbed coastal wetland habitat still avail- able to the birds. Freeway construction began, but before it was completed arrangements to obtain and protect the matShland fell through. Despite claims by the government that it'would somehow eventually manage to acquire the land, conservation groups filed a lawsuit. The groups sought and obtained an injunction halting con- struction on the multilane interstate highway until the mitigation marshland was obtained and protected. The coun ruled that the government had not complied with its obligations under section 7 ofthe ESA. Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987). It did not take long for concrete resu Its to occur: A deal was worked out with the owner of the land to turn it over to the federal government, and work on the freeway soon recommenced. Sierra Club v. Marsh, 692 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D. Cal. 1988). Whether employing the civil or criminal route, and whether initiated by the federal gov- ernment or private citizens, it is clear that ESA enforcement must be a high priority if the un. derlying goals of the statute are to be attained. Criminal and civil enforcement proceedings and remedies available under the ESA are discussed below. 002H3 of the Endangered' Species Act Eileen Sobeck Five Mexican nationals (including three employees of the state of Mexico) travel to Mi. ami to purchase a gorilla and an orangutan for a Mexican zoo. (The commercial sale of gorillas and orangutans, both listed as endangered spe- cies, and their expon out of the United States are strictly prohibited under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.s.e. S;S; 1531-43 (1988).) They contact an animal dealer (really a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agent posing as an unscrupulous primate dealer) and wire $92,500 to the United States to pay forche animals. Later in the week, the purchasers meet the sellers at an airpon where a charter aircraft is supposedly being loaded with the contraband animals. They board the waiting plane to in. spect the contents and discover a gorilla in a cage, complete with straw and gorilla excre. ment. Imagine their shock when the gorilla turns out to be an FWS enforcement agent in disguise and they are all placed under arrest. The entire transaction was monitored by FWS. Not wanting to cause undue stress to a real gorilla, an fWS enforcement agent had donned a gorilla suit for the "bust" at the airpon. The five Mexicans were charged with criminal violations of the ESA and related statutes, and presently are awaiting trial. See United Slates v. Bernal, No. . 93-0084.CR.Moreno (S.D. Fla. filed Feb. 17, 1993). An unusual scenario, yes; but it happened. Creative methods are often required for effec- tive criminal enforcement of the ESA. Wildlife violations often occur in isolated wilderness ar- eas or overseas and may involve smuggling or other clandestine activities. However, highly Tbe views expressed in this article are tbose of the autbor a1'ld do not necessarily represent the Offi- cial position of the Department of justice or any otber federal agellcy. NR&E/SUMMER 1993 Criminal Enforcement The ESA provides for a number of enforce. ment remedies against violatotS. Potentially the strongest weapons in the enforcement arsenal are the criminal sanctions provided for in sec- tion II (b) of the Act. Sanctions are available against' 'any person who knowingly violates any provision of the Act, or any permit or certificate issued here under, or of any regulation.. " 16U.s.e. S; 1540(b).Asincreasedbythe 1984 Sentencing Reform ACI and the 1987 Criminal Fine Improvements Act, the maximum criminal penalties under the ESA have been raised 10 a fine of $ 100,000 and/or one year in prison for an individual per violation and 10 a $200,000 fine for a corporate violator. To obtain a criminal conviction under the