The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA or "The Act"; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) is the primary law in the United States for protecting and conserving imperiled species. Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. The Supreme Court of the United States described it as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation". The purposes of the ESA are two-fold: to prevent extinction and to recover species to the point where the law's protections are not needed. It therefore "protect[s] species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" through different mechanisms. For example, section 4 requires the agencies overseeing the Act to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered. Section 9 prohibits unlawful 'take,' of such species, which means to "harass, harm, hunt..." Section 7 directs federal agencies to use their authorities to help conserve listed species. The Act also serves as the enacting legislation to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." The Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS have been delegated by the Act with the authority to promulgate any rules and guidelines within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement its provisions.

History
Calls for wildlife conservation in the United States increased in the early 1900s because of the visible decline of several species. One example was the near-extinction of the bison, which used to number in the tens of millions. Similarly, the extinction of the passenger pigeon, which numbered in the billions, also caused concern. The whooping crane also received widespread attention as unregulated hunting and habitat loss contributed to a steady decline in its population. By 1890, it had disappeared from its primary breeding range in the north central United States. Scientists of the day played a prominent role in raising public awareness about the losses. For example, George Bird Grinnell highlighted bison decline by writing articles in Forest and Stream.

To address these concerns, Congress enacted the Lacey Act of 1900. The Lacey Act was the first federal law that regulated commercial animal markets. It also prohibited the sale of illegally killed animals between states. Other legislation followed, including the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, a 1937 treaty prohibiting the hunting of right and gray whales, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966

Despite these treaties and protections, many populations still continued to decline. By 1941, only an estimated 16 whooping cranes remained in the wild. By 1963, the bald eagle, the U.S. national symbol, was in danger of extinction. Only around 487 nesting pairs remained. Loss of habitat, shooting, and DDT poisoning contributed to its decline.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tried to prevent the extinction of these species. Yet, it lacked the necessary Congressional authority and funding. In response to this need, Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act () on October 15, 1966. The Act initiated a program to conserve, protect, and restore select species of native fish and wildlife. As a part of this program, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land or interests in land that would further the conservation of these species.

The Department of Interior issued the first list of endangered species in March 1967. It included 14 mammals, 36 birds, 6 reptiles, 6 amphibians, and 22 fish. A few notable species listed in 1967 were the grizzly bear, American alligator, Florida manatee, and bald eagle. The list included only vertebrates at the time because of the Department of Interior's limited definition of "fish and wildlife."

The Endangered Species Preservation Act was repealed by the Endangered Species Act.

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 () amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. It established a list of species in danger of worldwide extinction. It also expanded protections for species covered in 1966 and added to the list of protected species. While the 1966 Act only applied to 'game' and wild birds, the 1969 Act also protected mollusks and crustaceans. Punishments for poaching or unlawful importation or sale of these species were also increased. Any violation could result in a $10,000 fine or up to one year of jail time.

Notably, the Act called for an international convention or treaty to conserve endangered species. A 1963 IUCN resolution called for a similar international convention. In February, 1973 a meeting in Washington, D.C., was convened. This meeting produced the comprehensive multilateral treaty known as CITES or the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 provided a template for the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by using the term "based on the best scientific and commercial data." This standard is used as a guideline to determine if a species is in danger of extinction.

Endangered Species Act of 1973
In 1972, President Nixon declared current species conservation efforts to be inadequate. He called on the 93rd United States Congress to pass comprehensive endangered species legislation. Congress responded with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which was signed into law by Nixon on December 28, 1973 ().

The ESA was a landmark conservation law. Academic researchers have referred to it as "one of the nation's most significant environmental laws." It has also been called "one of the most powerful environmental statutes in the U.S. and one of the world's strongest species protection laws."

Another distinction of the December 1973 Act was that, unlike the 1969 legislation, this time plants were eligible for listing. Historians attribute this new-found concern for imperiled plants to ongoing global treaty negotiations (especially in 1972 and 1973) toward what would eventually be adopted in 1975 under the title, "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)." Prior to this time, attention to the conservation needs of native plants had been stalled by complications that do not pertain to animals. How to adequately distinguish plants illegally collected in the wild from plants propagated from seeds or cuttings taken from horticultural specimens was among the points of contention. Ultimately, federal authority over enforcement of endangered plant protections has centered on regulation of interstate commerce of such plants. This legal distinction for plants became controversial in practice when a group of citizens, Torreya Guardians, chose to help an endangered glacial relict plant, Florida Torreya, move to cooler poleward climates before conservation professionals were ready to begin their own experimentation with assisted migration of endangered species. Because movements of seeds and seedlings by this group was both noncommercial and based on horticulturally produced seeds and seedlings, there was no legal apparatus to halt their actions.

Continuing need
The available science highlights the need for biodiversity protection laws like the ESA. About one million species worldwide are currently threatened with extinction. North America alone has lost 3 billion birds since 1970. These significant population declines are a precursor to extinction. Half a million species do not have enough habitat for long-term survival. These species are likely to go extinct in the next few decades without habitat restoration. Along with other conservation tools, the ESA is a critical instrument in protecting imperiled species from major ongoing threats. These include climate change, land use change, habitat loss, invasive species, and overexploitation.

Endangered Species Act

President Richard Nixon declared current species conservation efforts to be inadequate and called on the 93rd United States Congress to pass comprehensive endangered species legislation. Congress responded with a completely rewritten law, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which was signed by Nixon on December 28, 1973 (). It was written by a team of lawyers and scientists, including Dr. Russell E. Train, the first appointed head of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an outgrowth of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Dr. Train was assisted by a core group of staffers, including Dr. Earl Baysinger at EPA, Dick Gutting, and Dr. Gerard A. "Jerry" Bertrand, a Ph.D. Marine Biologist by training (Oregon State University, 1969), who had transferred from his post as the senior scientific adviser to the Commandant of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, office of the Commandant of the Corps., to join the newly formed White House Council on Environmental Quality. The staff, under Dr. Train's leadership, incorporated dozens of new principles and ideas into the landmark legislation but also incorporated previous laws, as was desired by Congressman John Dingle (D-Michigan) when he first proposed the idea of a "Endangered Species Act", crafting a document that completely changed the direction of environmental conservation in the United States. Among the staff, Dr. Bertrand is credited with having written major parts of the Act, including the infamous "takings" clause, . "We didn't know what we couldn't do," Dr. Bertrand has said about the Act. "We were doing what we thought was scientifically valid and right for the environment."

The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." California historian Kevin Starr was more emphatic when he said: "The Endangered Species Act of 1972 is the Magna Carta of the environmental movement."

The ESA is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS 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.

In March 2008, The Washington Post reported that documents showed that the Bush administration, beginning in 2001, had erected "pervasive bureaucratic obstacles" that limited the number of species protected under the act:
 From 2000 to 2003, until a U.S. District Court overturned the decision, Fish and Wildlife Service officials said that if that agency identified a species as a candidate for the list, citizens could not file petitions for that species.
 Interior Department personnel were told they could use "info from files that refutes petitions but not anything that supports" petitions filed to protect species.
 Senior department officials revised a longstanding policy that rated the threat to various species based primarily on their populations within U.S. borders, giving more weight to populations in Canada and Mexico, countries with less extensive regulations than the U.S.
 Officials changed the way species were evaluated under the act by considering where the species currently lived, rather than where they used to exist.
 Senior officials repeatedly dismissed the views of scientific advisers who said that species should be protected.

In 2014, the House of Representatives passed the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act, which would require the government to disclose the data it uses to determine species classification.

In July 2018, lobbyists, Republican legislators, and the administration of President Donald Trump, proposed, introduced, and voted on laws and amendments to the ESA. One example was from the Interior Department which wanted to add economic considerations when deciding if a species should be on the "endangered" or "threatened" list.

In October 2019, at the urging of the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Property and Environment Research Center, the USFWS and the NMFS under President Donald Trump changed the §4(d) rule to treat "threatened" and "critically endangered" species differently, legalizing private recovery initiatives and habitats for species that are merely "threatened." Environmental opponents criticized the revision as "crashing like a bulldozer" through the act and "tipping the scales way in favour of industry." Some critics, including the Sierra Club, have pointed out these changes come just months after the IPBES released its Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which found that human activity has pushed a million species of flora and fauna to the brink of extinction, and would only serve to exacerbate the crisis. The California legislature passed a bill to raise California regulations to thwart Trump's changes, but it was vetoed by Governor Newsom. In January 2020, the House Natural Resources Committee reported similar legislation. In December 2020, the Trump administration further rolled back the Endangered Species Act by reducing habitat protections for at-risk species, and now restricts protections to where they currently live, not where they lived previously or where they might migrate to as a result of climate change. In June 2021, the Biden administration said it was reviewing the Trump era rollback of the Endangered Species Act and plans to reverse or revise some of the changes, in particular those relating to critical habitat regulations. The Biden administration is also considering restoring some protections for those species listed under the act as "threatened". On July 5, 2022, a federal judge reversed many of the Trump administration's rollbacks of the Endangered Species Act.

Content of the ESA
The ESA consists of 17 sections. Key legal requirements of the ESA include:

 The federal government must determine whether species are endangered or threatened. If so, they must list the species for protection under the ESA (Section 4).
 If determinable, critical habitat must be designated for listed species (Section 4).
 Absent certain limited situations (Section 10), it is illegal to "take" an endangered species (Section 9). "Take" can mean kill, harm, or harass (Section 3).
 Federal agencies will use their authorities to conserve endangered species and threatened species (Section 7).
 Federal agencies cannot jeopardize listed species' existence or destroy critical habitat (Section 7).
 Any import, export, interstate, and foreign commerce of listed species is generally prohibited (Section 9).
 Endangered fish or wildlife cannot be taken without a take permit. This also applies to certain threatened animals with section 4(d) rules (Section 10).

Section 4: Listing and Recovery
Section 4 of the ESA sets forth the process by which species are designated as endangered or threatened. Species with these designations receive protections under federal law. Section 4 also requires critical habitat designation and recovery plans for those species.

Petition and listing
To be considered for listing, the species must meet one of five criteria (section 4(a)(1)):

1. There is the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
2. An over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
3. The species is declining due to disease or predation.
4. There is an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
5. There are other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Potential candidate species are then prioritized, with "emergency listing" given the highest priority. Species that face a "significant risk to their well being" are in this category.

A species can be listed in two ways. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or NOAA Fisheries (also called the National Marine Fisheries Service) can directly list a species through its candidate assessment program, or an individual or organizational petition may request that the FWS or NMFS list a species. A "species" under the act can be a true taxonomic species, a subspecies, or in the case of vertebrates, a "distinct population segment." The procedures are the same for both types except with the person/organization petition, there is a 90-day screening period.

During the listing process, economic factors cannot be considered, but must be " based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available." The 1982 amendment to the ESA added the word "solely" to prevent any consideration other than the biological status of the species. Congress rejected President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12291 which required economic analysis of all government agency actions. The House committee's statement was "that economic considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding the status of species."

The very opposite result happened with the 1978 amendment where Congress added the words "...taking into consideration the economic impact..." in the provision on critical habitat designation.
The 1978 amendment linked the listing procedure with critical habitat designation and economic considerations, which almost completely halted new listings, with almost 2,000 species being withdrawn from consideration.

Listing process
After receiving a petition to list a species, the two federal agencies take the following steps, or rulemaking procedures, with each step being published in the Federal Register, the US government's official journal of proposed or adopted rules and regulations:

1. If a petition presents information that the species may be imperiled, a screening period of 90 days begins (interested persons and/or organization petitions only). If the petition does not present substantial information to support listing, it is denied.

2. If the information is substantial, a status review is started, which is a comprehensive assessment of a species' biological status and threats, with a result of : "warranted", "not warranted," or "warranted but precluded."
 A finding of not warranted, the listing process ends.
 Warranted finding means the agencies publish a 12-month finding (a proposed rule) within one year of the date of the petition, proposing to list the species as threatened or endangered. Comments are solicited from the public, and one or more public hearings may be held. Three expert opinions from appropriate and independent specialists may be included, but this is voluntary.
 A "warranted but precluded" finding is automatically recycled back through the 12-month process indefinitely until a result of either "not warranted" or "warranted" is determined. The agencies monitor the status of any "warranted but precluded" species.
Essentially the "warranted but precluded" finding is a deferral added by the 1982 amendment to the ESA. It means other, higher-priority actions will take precedence.
For example, an emergency listing of a rare plant growing in a wetland that is scheduled to be filled in for housing construction would be a "higher-priority".

3. Within another year, a final determination (a final rule) must be made on whether to list the species. The final rule time limit may be extended for 6 months and listings may be grouped together according to similar geography, threats, habitat or taxonomy.

The annual rate of listing (i.e., classifying species as "threatened" or "endangered") increased steadily from the Ford administration (47 listings, 15 per year) through Carter (126 listings, 32 per year), Reagan (255 listings, 32 per year), George H. W. Bush (231 listings, 58 per year), and Clinton (521 listings, 65 per year) before decline to its lowest rate under George W. Bush (60 listings, 8 per year as of 5/24/08).

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. Citizen involvement has been shown to identify species not moving through the process efficiently, and identify more imperiled species. The longer species are listed, the more likely they are to be classified as recovering by the FWS.

Public notice, comments and judicial review
Public notice is given through legal notices in newspapers, and communicated to state and county agencies within the species' area. Foreign nations may also receive notice of a listing.
A public hearing is mandatory if any person has requested one within 45 days of the published notice.
"The purpose of the notice and comment requirement is to provide for meaningful public participation in the rulemaking process." summarized the Ninth Circuit court in the case of Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt.

Listing status

Listing status and its abbreviations used in Federal Register and by federal agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

 E = endangered (Sec.3.6, Sec.4.a ) – any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest.
 T = threatened (Sec.3.20, Sec.4.a ) – any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

Other categories:

 C = candidate (Sec.4.b.3 ) – a species under consideration for official listing
 E(S/A), T(S/A) = endangered or threatened due to similarity of appearance (Sec.4.e ) – a species not endangered or threatened, but so closely resembles in appearance a species which has been listed as endangered or threatened, that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species.
 XE, XN = experimental essential or non-essential population (Sec.10.j ) – any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered species or a threatened species released outside the current range under authorization of the Secretary. Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species are treated as threatened species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.

Critical habitat
The provision of the law in Section 4 that establishes critical habitat is a regulatory link between habitat protection and recovery goals, requiring the identification and protection of all lands, water and air necessary to recover endangered species.
To determine what exactly is critical habitat, the needs of open space for individual and population growth, food, water, light or other nutritional requirements, breeding sites, seed germination and dispersal needs, and lack of disturbances are considered.

As habitat loss is the primary threat to most imperiled species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to designate specific areas as protected "critical habitat" zones. In 1978, Congress amended the law to make critical habitat designation a mandatory requirement for all threatened and endangered species.

The amendment also added economics into the process of determining habitat: "...shall designate critical habitat... on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other impact, of specifying... area as critical habitat."
The congressional report on the 1978 amendment described the conflict between the new Section 4 additions and the rest of the law:
"... the critical habitat provision is a startling section which is wholly inconsistent with the rest of the legislation. It constitutes a loophole which could readily be abused by any Secretary ... who is vulnerable to political pressure or who is not sympathetic to the basic purposes of the Endangered Species Act."-- House of Representatives Report 95-1625, at 69 (1978)

The amendment of 1978 added economic considerations for critical habitat determinations and the 1982 amendment explicitly prohibited similar economic considerations when determining the status of a species.

Several studies on the effect of critical habitat designation on species' recovery rates have been done between 1997 and 2003. Although it has been criticized, the Taylor study in 2003 found that, "species with critical habitat were... twice as likely to be improving...."

Critical habitats are required to contain "all areas essential to the conservation" of the imperiled species, and may be on private or public lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a policy limiting designation to lands and waters within the U.S. and both federal agencies 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.

All federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats (Section 7(a) (2)). 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 NMFS 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 focus on recovery. Species with critical habitat are twice as likely to be recovering as species without critical habitat.

Recovery plan
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are required to create an Endangered Species 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 (4) through Carter (9), Reagan (30), Bush I (44), and Clinton (72), but declined under Bush II (16 per year as of 9/1/06).

The goal of the law is to make itself unnecessary, and recovery plans are a means toward that goal. Recovery plans became more specific after 1988 when Congress added provisions to Section 4(f) of the law that spelled out the minimum contents of a recovery plan. Three types of information must be included:
 A description of "site-specific" management actions to make the plan as explicit as possible.
 The "objective, measurable criteria" to serve as a baseline for judging when and how well a species is recovering.
 An estimate of money and resources needed to achieve the goal of recovery and delisting.

The amendment also added public participation to the process. There is a ranking order, similar to the listing procedures, for recovery plans, with the highest priority being for species most likely to benefit from recovery plans, especially when the threat is from construction, or other developmental or economic activity. Recovery plans cover domestic and migratory species.

Delisting

To delist species, several factors are considered: the threats are eliminated or controlled, population size and growth, and the stability of habitat quality and quantity. Also, over a dozen species have been delisted due to inaccurate data putting them on the list in the first place.

There is also "downlisting" of a species where some of the threats have been controlled and the population has met recovery objectives, then the species can be reclassified to "threatened" from "endangered"

Two examples of animal species delisted are: the Virginia northern flying squirrel (subspecies) on August, 2008, which had been listed since 1985, and the gray wolf (Northern Rocky Mountain DPS). On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. A section of that Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to reissue within 60 days of enactment the final rule published on April 2, 2009, that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf (Canis lupus) as a distinct population segment (DPS) and to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting report lists four plants that have recovered:

Section 7: Cooperation and Consultation

Overview
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires cooperation among federal agencies to conserve endangered or threatened species. Section 7(a)(1) directs the Secretary of the Interior and all federal agencies to proactively use their authorities to conserve such species. This directive is often referred to as an 'affirmative requirement.' Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Federal agencies (referred to as "action agencies") must consult with the Secretary of the Interior before taking any action which may affect listed species. Section 7(a)(2) is often referred to as the consultation process.

The two agencies that administer the Act are the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These two agencies are often collectively referred to as "the Services" and lead the consultation process. FWS is responsible for the recovery of terrestrial, freshwater, and catadromous species. NMFS is responsible for marine species and anadromous fish. NMFS manages recovery for 165 endangered and threatened marine species including 66 foreign species. As of January 2020, the Services have listed 2,273 species worldwide as endangered or threatened. 1,662 of these species occur in the United States.

Section 7(a)(1)
Section 7(a)(1) requires federal agencies to work with FWS and NMFS to coordinate endangered and threatened species conservation. Federal agencies should also account for any effects on endangered or threatened species in planning their activities.

An example of the 7(a)(1) process is the Army Corps of Engineers' management of the Lower Mississippi River. Since the early 2000s, a division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has worked with FWS and the states to resolve endangered species and ecosystem management issues. ESA-listed species in the area include the least tern (Sterna antillarum), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and the fat pocketbook (potamilus capax). The goal of this 7(a)(1) conservation plan is to protect listed species while allowing the Corps to carry out its civil works responsibilities. As part of the plan, the Corps undertakes projects that will benefit those species. It also considers species ecology as a part of project design. All three listed species in the Lower Mississippi River have increased in numbers since the plan was established.

Section 7(a)(2)
An action agency is required to consult with the Services if it has reason to believe that a species listed under the ESA may be present in the proposed project area. It also must consult if the agency believes the action will likely affect the species. This requirement, established by section 7(a)(2), is commonly referred to as the consultation process.

Informal consultation phase
Consultation typically begins informally at the request of an action agency in the early stages of project planning. Discussion topics include listed species in the proposed action area and any effect(s) the action may have on those species. If both agencies agree that the proposed action is not likely to affect the species, the project moves forward. However, if the agency's action may affect a listed species, the agency is required to prepare a biological assessment.

Biological assessments
A biological assessment is a document prepared by the action agency. It lays out the project's potential effects, particularly on listed species. The action agency must complete a biological assessment if listed species or critical habitat may be present. The assessment is optional if only proposed species or critical habitat are present.

As a part of the assessment, the action agency conducts on-site inspections to see whether protected species are present. The assessment will also include the likely effects of the action on such species. The assessment should address all listed and proposed species in the action area, not only those likely to be affected.

The biological assessment may also include conservation measures. Conservation measures are actions the action agency intends to take to promote the recovery of listed species. These actions may also serve to minimize the projects' effects on species in the project area.

There are three possible conclusions to a biological assessment: "no effect", "not likely to adversely affect", or "likely to adversely affect" listed or proposed species.

The action agency may reach a "no effect" conclusion if it determines the proposed action will not affect listed species or designated critical habitat. The action agency may reach a "not likely to adversely affect" decision if the proposed action is insignificant or beneficial. The Services will then review the biological assessment and either agree or disagree with the agency's findings. If the Services agree the project's potential impacts have been eliminated, they will concur in writing. The concurrence letter must outline any modifications agreed to during informal consultation. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Services advise the action agency to initiate formal consultation.

If the Services or the action agency finds the action "likely to adversely affect" protected species, this triggers formal consultation.

Formal consultation
During formal consultation, the Services establish the project's effects on listed species. Specifically, they address whether the project will jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy/adversely modify species' designated critical habitat.

"Jeopardy" is not defined in the ESA, but the Services have defined it in regulation to mean "when an action is likely to appreciably reduce a species' likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild." In other words, if an action merely reduces the likelihood of recovery but not survival then the standard of jeopardy is not met.

To assess the likelihood of jeopardy, the Services will review the species' biological and ecological traits. These could include the species' population dynamics (population size, variability and stability), life-history traits, critical habitat, and how any proposed action might alter its critical habitat. They also consider how limited the species' range is and whether the threats that led to species listing have improved or worsened since listing.

The Services have defined adverse modification as "a diminishment of critical habitat that leads to a lower likelihood of survival and recovery for a listed species." The diminishment may be direct or indirect. To assess the likelihood of adverse modification, biologists will first verify the scope of the proposed action. This includes identifying the area likely to be affected and considering the proximity of the action to species or designated critical habitat. The duration and frequency of any disturbance to the species or its habitat is also assessed.

A formal consultation may last up to 90 days. After this time the Services will issue a biological opinion. The biological opinion contains findings related to the project's effects on listed and proposed species. The Services must complete the biological opinion within 45 days of the conclusion of formal consultation. However, the Services may extend this timeline if they require more information to make a determination. The action agency must agree to the extension.

Finding of no jeopardy or adverse modification
The Services may issue a finding of "no jeopardy or adverse modification" if the proposed action does not pose any harm to listed or proposed species or their designated critical habitat. Alternatively, the Service could find that proposed action is likely to harm listed or proposed species or their critical habitat but does not reach the level of jeopardy or adverse modification. In this case, the Services will prepare an incidental take statement. Under most circumstances, the ESA prohibits "take" of listed species. Take includes harming, killing or harassing a listed species. However, the ESA allows for "incidental" take that results from an otherwise lawful activity that is not the direct purpose of the action.

An incidental take statement will be agreed to between the Services and the action agency. The statement should describe the amount of anticipated take due to the proposed action. It will also include "reasonable and prudent measures" to minimize the take. Incidental take cannot pose jeopardy or potential extinction to species.

Finding of jeopardy or adverse modification
Following formal consultation, the Services may determine that the action will result in jeopardy or adverse modification to critical habitat. If this is the case, this finding will be included in the biological opinion.

However, during consultation, the Services may find there are actions that the agency may take to avoid this. These actions are known as reasonable and prudent alternative actions. In the event of a jeopardy or adverse modification finding, the agency must adopt reasonable and prudent alternative actions. However, the Services retain final say on which are included in the biological opinion.

According to regulation, reasonable and prudent alternative actions must:

 be consistent with the purpose of the proposed project
 be consistent with the action agency's legal authority and jurisdiction
 be economically and technically feasible
 in the opinion of the Services, avoid jeopardy

Given a finding of jeopardy or adverse modification, the action agency has several options:

 Adopt one or more of the reasonable and prudent alternative actions and move forward with the modified project
 Elect not to grant the permit, fund the project, or undertake the action
 Request an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee. Another possibility is to re-initiate consultation. The action agency would do this by first proposing to modify the action
 Propose reasonable and prudent alternatives not yet considered

The action agency must notify the Services of its course of action on any project that receives a jeopardy or adverse modification opinion.

In the past ten years, FWS has made jeopardy determinations in three cases (delta smelt, aquatic species in Idaho, and South Florida water management), each of which has included reasonable and prudent alternatives. No project has been stopped as a result of FWS finding a project had no available path forward.

In rare cases, no alternatives to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification will be available. An analysis of FWS consultations from 1987 to 1991 found only 0.02% were blocked or canceled because of a jeopardy or adverse modification opinion with no reasonable and prudent alternatives. In this scenario, the only option that the action agency and applicant are left with is to apply for an exemption. Exemptions are decided upon by the Endangered Species Committee.

Exemptions
An action agency may apply for an exemption if: (1) it believes it cannot comply with the requirements of the biological opinion; or (2) formal consultation yields no reasonable and prudent alternative actions. The exemption application must be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior within 90 days of the conclusion of formal consultation.

The Secretary can then recommend the application to the Endangered Species Committee (informally known as "The God Squad"). This committee is composed of several Cabinet-level members:

 The Secretary of Agriculture
 The Secretary of the Army
 The Secretary of the Interior
 The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
 The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 One representative from each affected State (appointed by the President of the United States)

Endangered Species Committee decisions

The governor of each affected state is notified of any exemption applications. The governor will recommend a representative to join the committee for this application decision. Within 140 days of recommending an exemption, the Secretary should submit to the committee a report that gives:

 the availability of reasonable and prudent alternatives
 a comparison of the benefits of the proposed action to any alternative courses of action
 whether the proposed action is in the public interest or is of national or regional significance
 available mitigation measures to limit the effects on listed species
 whether the action agency made any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources

Once this information is received, the committee and the secretary will hold a public hearing. The committee has 30 days from the time of receiving the above report to make a decision. In order for the exemption to be granted, five out of the seven members must vote in favor of the exemption. The findings can be challenged in federal court. In 1992, one such challenge was the case of Portland Audubon Society v. Endangered Species Committee heard in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.<ref name="Justia">{{cite web|title=Portland Audubon Society v. Endangered Species Committee|url=http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/984/1534/356273/|publisher=Justia|access-date=2009-08-26}}</ref>

The court found that three members had been in illegal ex parte contact with the then-President George H.W. Bush, a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The committee's exemption was for the Bureau of Land Management's timber sale and "incidental takes" of the endangered northern spotted owl in Oregon.

Rarely does the Endangered Species Committee consider projects for exemption. The Endangered Species Committee has only met three times since the inception of the ESA. An exemption was granted on two of these occasions.

 Erroneous beliefs and misconceptions
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act provides the Services with powerful tools to conserve listed species, aid species' recovery, and protect critical habitat. At the same time, it is one of the most controversial sections. One reason for the controversy is a misconception that it stops economic development. However, because the standard to prevent jeopardy or adverse modification applies only to federal activities, this claim is misguided. A 2015 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed ESA consultation data from 2008 to 2015. Of the 88,290 consultations included, not a single project was stopped as a result of the FWS finding adverse modification or jeopardy without an alternative available.

An earlier study from the World Wildlife Fund examined more than 73,000 FWS consultations from 1987 to 1991. The study found that only 0.47% consultations resulted in potential jeopardy to a species. As a result, projects were required to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives, but were not canceled altogether. Only 18 (0.02%) consultations canceled a project because of the danger it posed to species.

 Section 10: Permitting, Conservation Agreements, and Experimental Populations
Section 10 of the ESA provides a permit system that may allow acts prohibited by Section 9. This includes scientific and conservation activities.  For example, the government may let someone move a species from one area to another. This would otherwise be a prohibited taking under Section 9. Before the law was amended in 1982, a listed species could be taken only for scientific or research purposes. The combined result of the amendments to the Endangered Species Act have created a more flexible ESA.

More changes were made in the 1990s in an attempt by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to shield the ESA from a Congress hostile to the law. He instituted incentive-based strategies that would balance the goals of economic development and conservation.

 Habitat conservation plans
Section 10 may also allow activities that can unintentionally impact protected species.  A common activity might be construction where these species live. More than half of habitat for listed species is on non-federal property. Under section 10, impacted parties can apply for an incidental take permit (ITP). An application for an ITP requires a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). HCPs must minimize and mitigate the impacts of the activity. HCPs can be established to provide protections for both listed and non-listed species. Such non-listed species include species that have been proposed for listing. Hundreds of HCPs have been created. However, the effectiveness of the HCP program remains unknown.

If activities may unintentionally take a protected species, an incidental take permit can be issued. The applicant submits an application with an habitat conservation plan (HCP). If approved by the agency (FWS or NMFS) they are issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). The permit allows a certain number of the species to be "taken." The Services have a "No Surprises" policy for HCPs. Once an ITP is granted, the Services cannot require applicants to spend more money or set aside additional land or pay more.

To receive the benefit of the permit the applicant must comply with all the requirements of the HCP. Because the permit is issued by a federal agency to a private party, it is a federal action. Other federal laws will apply such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A notice of the permit application action must be published in the Federal Register and a public comment period of 30 to 90 days offered.

 Safe Harbor Agreements
The "Safe Harbor" agreement (SHA) is similar to an HCP. It is voluntary between the private landowner and the Services. The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit a listed or proposed species. In exchange, the Services will allow some future "takes" through an Enhancement of Survival Permit. A landowner can have either a "Safe Harbor" agreement or an HCP, or both. The policy was developed by the Clinton administration. Unlike an HCP the activities covered by a SHA are designed to protect species. The policy relies on the "enhancement of survival" provision of Section §1539(a)(1)(A). Safe harbor agreements are subject to public comment rules of the APA.

 Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances
HCPs and SHAs are applied to listed species. If an activity may "take" a proposed or candidate species, parties can enter into Candidate Conservation Agreements With Assurances (CCAA). A party must show the Services they will take conservation measures to prevent listing. If a CCAA is approved and the species is later listed, the party with a CCAA gets an automatic "enhancement of survival" permit under Section §1539(a)(1)(A). CCAAs are subject to the public comment rules of the APA.

 Experimental populations
Experimental populations are listed species that have been intentionally introduced to a new area. They must be separate geographically from other populations of the same species. Experimental populations can be designated "essential" or "non-essential" "Essential" populations are those whose loss would appreciably reduce the survival of the species in the wild. "Non-essential" populations are all others. Nonessential experimental populations of listed species typically receive less protection than populations in the wild.

 Climate adaptation
June 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would "revise section 10(j) regulations under the ESA to better facilitate recovery by allowing for the introduction of listed species to suitable habitats outside of their historical ranges. The proposed change will help improve the conservation and recovery of imperiled ESA-listed species in the coming decades, as growing impacts from climate change and invasive species cause habitats within their historical ranges to shift and become unsuitable." The comment period ended August 2022, with more than 500 comments posted online by supporters and opponents. The final decision was scheduled for publication June 2023. As reported on the news page of Audubon, adoption of the proposed regulatory change will authorize, for the first time, use of a controversial climate adaptation tool: assisted migration. A 2010 paper in Conservation Letters had pointed out that, while no statutory changes appeared necessary to facilitate this newly proposed form of climate adaptation, "current regulations are an impediment to assisted colonization for many endangered animal species, whereas regulations do not necessarily restrict assisted colonization of endangered plants."

The U.S. Department of Interior on June 30, 2023, announced its decision to modify the section 10(j)  "experimental populations" rule generally as proposed a year earlier. The press release summarized the reason for the change as, "At the time the original 10(j) regulations were established, the potential impact of climate change on species and their habitats was not fully realized, yet in the decades since have become even more dramatic. These revisions will help prevent extinctions and support the recovery of imperiled species by allowing the Service and our partners to implement proactive, conservation-based species introductions to reduce the impacts of climate change and other threats such as invasive species." The rulemaking action includes a section summarizing 25 topics entailed in comments submitted in 2022, along with the agency's official response to each.

Effectiveness
As of 2023, an aggregate of 1,780 species had been listed through the years as "endangered" or a less severe category of "threatened". Of that total, 64 species improved enough to be removed from the list ("delisted"). Another 64 improved enough to be "downlisted" from endangered to threatened. While 11 species have been declared extinct since implementation of the law began, another 23 species have gone missing for so long that they have been proposed for official designation as extinct.

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 1972 ban on DDT by the EPA rather than the Endangered Species Act. However, the listing of these species as endangered led to many non-DDT oriented actions that were taken under the Endangered Species Act (i.e. captive breeding, habitat protection, and protection from disturbance).

Species which increased in population size since being placed on the endangered list include:
 Bald eagle (increased from 417 to 11,040 pairs between 1963 and 2007); removed from list 2007
 Whooping crane (increased from 54 to 436 birds between 1967 and 2003)
 Kirtland's warbler (increased from 210 to 1,415 pairs between 1971 and 2005)
 Peregrine falcon (increased from 324 to 1,700 pairs between 1975 and 2000); removed from list 1999
 Gray wolf (populations increased dramatically in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes States)
 Mexican wolf (increased to minimum population of 109 wolves in 2014 in southwest New Mexico and southeast Arizona)
 Red wolf (increased from 17 in 1980 to 257 in 2003)
 Gray whale (increased from 13,095 to 26,635 whales between 1968 and 1998); removed from list (Debated because whaling was banned before the ESA was set in place and that the ESA had nothing to do with the natural population increase since the cease of massive whaling [excluding Native American tribal whaling])
 Grizzly bear (increased from about 271 to over 580 bears in the Yellowstone area between 1975 and 2005)
 California's southern sea otter (increased from 1,789 in 1976 to 2,735 in 2005)
 San Clemente Indian paintbrush (increased from 500 plants in 1979 to more than 3,500 in 1997)
 Florida's Key deer (increased from 200 in 1971 to 750 in 2001)
 Big Bend gambusia (increased from a couple dozen to a population of over 50,000)
 Hawaiian goose (increased from 400 birds in 1980 to 1,275 in 2003)
 Virginia big-eared bat (increased from 3,500 in 1979 to 18,442 in 2004)
 Black-footed ferret (increased from 18 in 1986 to 600 in 2006)

The 1988 Congressional amendments to the act included a new section, Section 18, to aid effectiveness evaluations by having the agency annually report cumulative federal funding (and, to some degree, state funding) on a species-by-species basis. As of 2023, the most recent agency report presented expenditures cumulative through fiscal year 2020.

State endangered species lists
Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provided funding for development of programs for management of threatened and endangered species by state wildlife agencies. Subsequently, lists of endangered and threatened species within their boundaries have been prepared by each state. These state lists often include species which are considered endangered or threatened within a specific state but not within all states, and which therefore are not included on the national list of endangered and threatened species. Examples include Florida, Minnesota, and Maine.

Penalties
There are different degrees of violation with the law. The most punishable offenses are trafficking, and any act of knowingly "taking" (which includes harming, wounding, or killing) an endangered species.

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. Lists of violations and exact fines are available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration web-site.

One provision of this law is that no penalty may be imposed if, by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was in self-defense. The law also eliminates criminal penalties for accidentally killing listed species during farming and ranching activities.

In addition to fines or imprisonment, a license, permit, or other agreement issued by a federal agency that authorized an individual to import or export fish, wildlife, or plants may be revoked, suspended or modified. 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.

Use of money 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, and forest service 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.

 Challenges
Successfully implementing the Act has been challenging in the face of opposition and frequent misinterpretations of the Act's requirements. One challenge attributed to the Act, though debated often, is the cost conferred on industry. These costs may come in the form of lost opportunity or slowing down operations to comply with the regulations put forth in the Act. Costs tend to be concentrated in a handful of industries. For example, the requirement to consult with the Services on federal projects has at times slowed down operations by the oil and gas industry. The industry has often pushed to develop millions of federal acres of land rich in fossil fuels. Some argue the ESA may encourage preemptive habitat destruction or taking listed or proposed species by landowners. One example of such perverse incentives is the case of a forest owner who, in response to ESA listing of the red-cockaded woodpecker, increased harvesting and shortened the age at which he harvests his trees to ensure that they do not become old enough to become suitable habitat. Some economists believe that finding a way to reduce such perverse incentives would lead to more effective protection of endangered species. According to research published in 1999 by Alan Green and the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) there are also loopholes in the ESA that are commonly exploited in the exotic pet trade. These loopholes allow some trade in threatened or endangered species within and between states.

As a result of these tensions, the ESA is often seen as pitting the interests of conservationists and species against industry. One prominent case in the 1990s involved the proposed listing of Northern spotted owl and designation of critical habitat. Another notable case illustrating this contentiousness is the protracted dispute over the Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus).

 Extinctions and species at risk
Critics of the Act have noted that despite its goal of recovering species so they are no longer listed, this has rarely happened. In its almost 50-year history, less than fifty species have been delisted due to recovery. Since the passage of the ESA, several species that were listed have gone extinct. Many more that are still listed are at risk of extinction despite conservation measures mandated by the Act. As of January 2020 the Services indicate that eleven species have been lost to extinction. These extinct species are the Caribbean monk seal, the Santa Barbara song sparrow; the Dusky seaside sparrow; the Longjaw cisco; the Tecopa pupfish; the Guam broadbill;  the Eastern puma; and the Blue pike.

The National Marine Fisheries Service lists eight species among the most at risk of extinction in the near future. These species are the Atlantic salmon; the Central California Coast coho; the Cook Inlet beluga whale; the Hawaiian monk seal; the Pacific leatherback sea turtle; the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon; the Southern resident killer whale; and last, the White abalone. Threats from human activities are the primary cause for most being threatened. The Services have also changed a species' status from threatened to endangered on nine occasions. Such a move indicates that the species is closer to extinction. The number of status changes from endangered to threatened is greater than vice versa.

Defenders of the Act have argued such criticisms are unfounded. For example, many listed species are recovering at the rate specified by their recovery plan. Research shows that the vast majority of listed species are still extant and hundreds are on the path to recovery.

 Species awaiting listing
A 2019 report found that FWS faces a backlog of more than 500 species that have been determined to potentially warrant protection. All of these species still await a decision. Decisions to list or defer listing for species are supposed to take 2 years. However, on average it has taken the Fish and Wildlife Service 12 years to finalize a decision. A 2016 analysis found that approximately 50 species may have gone extinct while awaiting a listing decision. More funding might let the Services direct more resources towards biological assessments of these species and determine if they merit a listing decision. An additional issue is that species still listed under the Act may already be extinct. For example, the IUCN Red List declared the Scioto madtom extinct in 2013. It had last been seen alive in 1957. However, FWS still classifies the catfish as endangered.

 Criticisms of the ESA
The critique Unintended Consequences describes how costly regulatory consequences may provide a perverse incentive for landowners to curtail the establishment of endangered species and their habitats on private lands; the critique describes an examination of timber harvest activity on over 1,000 privately owned forest plots within the range of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, finding that when a landowner felt that pine growth had reach such a stage that it could attract nesting woodpeckers, they were more likely to harvest, regardless of timber prices at the time of harvest. One widely-held opinion is that the protections afforded to listed species curtail economic activity. Legislators have expressed that the ESA has been "weaponized," particularly against western states, preventing these states from utilizing these lands.

While the standard to prevent jeopardy or adverse modification applies only to federal activities, non-federal activities are subject to Section 10  of the Act and private activities on private lands may require federal discretionary permits (such as Clean Water Act Section 404), triggering Section 7 of the ESA.

The designation of critical habitat can restrict activities allowable on private lands; the designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership; allow the government to take or manage private property; establish a refuge, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area; or allow government access to private land.

Critics of the Endangered Species Act claim that it protects too many subspecies and populations in addition to complete species, and that the decision to list species has little or no scientific basis. Listing endangered species early can significantly improve the likelihood of successful recovery and can provide land managers and citizens with more options to protect disappearing plants and animals at less social or economic cost.

See also

 Critical habitat
 Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978
 List of endangered species in North America
 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 United States Fish and Wildlife Service list of endangered mammals and birds

Footnotes

References and further reading
 Brown, Gardner M., and Jason F. Shogren. "Economics of the endangered species act." Journal of Economic Perspectives 12.3 (1998): 3-20. online
 Carroll, Ronald, et al. "Strengthening the use of science in achieving the goals of the Endangered Species Act: an assessment by the Ecological Society of America." Ecological Applications 6.1 (1996): 1–11. online
Corn, M. Lynne and Alexandra M. Wyatt. The Endangered Species Act: A Primer. Congressional Research Service 2016.
 Czech, Brian, and Paul R. Krausman. The endangered species act: history, conservation biology, and public policy (JHU Press, 2001).
 Doremus, Holly. "Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: why better science isn't always better policy." Washington U Law Quarterly 75 (1997): 1029+ online
 Doremus, Holly. "Adaptive Management, the Endangered Species Act, and the Institutional Challenges of New Age Environmental Protection." Washburn Law Journal 41 (2001): 50+ online.
 Easter-Pilcher, Andrea. "Implementing the endangered species act." Bioscience 46.5 (1996): 355–363. online
 Goble, Dale, and J. Michael Scott, eds. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty (Island Press 2006).  excerpt

 Leshy, John D. "The Babbitt Legacy at the Department of the Interior: A Preliminary View." Environmental Law 31 (2001): 199+ online.
 Noss, Reed F., Michael O'Connell, and Dennis D. Murphy. The science of conservation planning: habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act (Island Press, 1997).
 Petersen, Shannon. "Congress and charismatic megafauna: A legislative history of the endangered species act." Environmental Law 29 (1999): 463+ .
 Schwartz, Mark W. "The performance of the endangered species act." in Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39 (2008) online.

 Taylor, Martin FJ, Kieran F. Suckling, and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski. "The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis." BioScience 55.4 (2005): 360–367. online

External links
 As codified in 16 U.S.C. chapter 35 of the United States Code from the LII
 As codified in 16 U.S.C. chapter 35 of the United States Code from the US House of Representatives
 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PDF/details) as amended in the GPO Statute Compilations collection
 Cornell University Law School-Babbit v. Sweet Home'' accessed July 25, 2005, The 1995 decision on whether significant habitat modifications on private property that actually kill species constitute "harm" for purposes of the ESA.
 Center for Biological Diversity accessed July 25, 2005
 Endangered Species Program – US Fish & Wildlife Service accessed June 16, 2012
 Endangered Species Act – National Marine Fisheries Service – NOAA accessed June 16, 2012
 Species Status Categories and Codes – US Fish & Wildlife Service accessed June 16, 2012
 Habitat Conservation Plans – US Fish & Wildlife Service accessed June 16, 2012
 The 1978 decision related to the ESA and the snail darter. accessed July, 2005
 Summary of Listed Species Listed Populations and Recovery Plans – US Fish & Wildlife Service accessed June 16, 2012
 Species Search – US Fish & Wildlife Service accessed June 16, 2012
 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: List of endangered species accessed June 16, 2012

1973 in American law

Nature conservation in the United States
United States federal environmental legislation
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States federal public land legislation
1973 in the environment
Wildlife law in the United States
United States Department of Commerce
Turtle conservation
December 1973 events in the United States

Endangered Species Act of 1973


Alcoolul benzilic este un alcool aromatic cu formula C6H5CH2OH. Radicalul benzil este adesea abreviat "Bn" (a nu se confunda cu "Bz", care este folosit pentru benzoil), astfel alcoolul benzilic este notată ca BnOH. Alcoolul benzilic este un lichid incolor, cu un ușor miros plăcut, aromatic. Acesta este un solvent util datorită polarității, toxicității reduse și presiunii de vapori joase. Alcoolul benzilic are o solubilitate moderată în apă (4 g/100 mL) și este miscibil cu alcooli și eter dietilic. Anionul rezultat prin deprotonarea grupului alcool este cunoscut sub numele de benzilat sau benziloxid.

Surse naturale
Alcoolul benzilic este produs în mod natural de multe plante și este prezent de obicei în fructe și ceaiuri. Îl regăsim de asemenea, într-o varietate de uleiuri esențiale , inclusiv de iasomie, zambilă, ylang-ylang. Este, de asemenea, prezent în castoreum.

Obținere
Alcoolul benzilic se obține prin hidroliza clorurii de benzil folosind hidroxid de sodiu:
 C6H5CH2Cl + NaOH → C6H5CH2OH + NaCl
Poate fi, de asemenea, obținut prin reacția Grignard, prin reacția bromurii de fenilmagneziu (C6H5MgBr) cu formaldehidă, urmată de acidifiere.

Reacții
Ca majoritatea alcoolilor reacționează cu acizii carboxilici formând esteri. În sinteza organică, benzil esterii sunt  grupări protectoare preferate, deoarece acestea pot fi eliminate prin ușoară hidrogenoliză.

Alcoolul benzilic reacționează cu acrilonitrilul rezultând N-benzilacrilamidă. Acesta este un exemplu de  reacție Ritter:

Utilizări
Alcoolul benzilic este folosit ca solvent universal pentru cerneluri, ceară, șelac, vopsele, lacuri și rășini epoxidice, acoperiri. Astfel, acesta poate fi utilizat ca diluant, mai ales atunci când e combinat cu amelioratori de vâscozitate compatibili  pentru a încuraja amestecul să adere suprafețelor vopsite. Este un precursor al unei varietăți de esteri, utilizați în industria săpunurilor, parfumurilor și aromelor. Atunci când este aplicat pe pielea deteriorată sau pe mucoase la o concentrație de 10%, acesta acționează ca un anestezic local și agent antimicrobian. Uneori, este inclus ca un degresant în produsele de curățat covoare. Ca solvent pentru coloranți, îmbunătățește procesul de vopsire a lânii, nailonului și pieilor. Este utilizat și ca revelator fotografic, și ca repelent contra insectelor.

Utilizări în nanotehnologie
Alcoolul benzilic a fost folosit ca solvent dielectric  pentru reconfigurarea  dielectroforetică a nanofirelor.

Utilizări în domeniul sănătății
Alcoolul benzilic este folosit ca și conservant bacteriostatic la concentrații scăzute în medicația intravenoasă, cosmetice și medicamente topice.

Utilizarea alcoolului benzilic ca  soluție de 5% a fost aprobată de US FDA ca tratament contra paduchilor de cap la copii mai mari de 6 luni și la adulți. Acesta afectează orificiile respiratorii ale insectei împiedicând închiderea lor. Apoi acestea se înfundă cu apă, ulei mineral sau alte substanțe și insecta moare prin asfixiere.

Alcoolul benzilic este folosit în mod eficient pentru tratamentul infestărilor cu păduchi, ca ingredient activ în loțiune șampon cu 5% alcool benzilic.

Alte utilizări
Alcoolul benzilic are aproape același indice de refracție ca și cuarțul și fibrele de lână . Dacă un obiect din cuarț  clar este cufundat în alcool benzilic, devine aproape invizibil. Acest test a fost folosit pentru a determina non-distructiv dacă un obiect este cu adevărat făcut din cuarț (a se vedea craniul de cristal). În mod similar, lână albă cufundat în alcool benzilic, de asemenea, devine aproape invizibilă dezvăluind în mod clar contaminanți, cum ar fi fibre mai închise la culoare sau goale în interior sau materiale vegetale.

Dermatite de contact

Alcoolul benzilic este un ingredient folosit la fabricarea de săpunuri, creme, loțiuni de piele, șampoane, și de produse de curățare facială și este utilizat în acest scop pe scară largă datorita proprietăților sale anti-bacteriene și antifungice. Este un ingredient comun într-o largă varietate de
produse de uz casnic și poate provoca grave dermatite alergice de contact  unui procent semnificativ din populație.

Măsuri de protecție
Alcool benzilic are o toxicitate acută scăzută cu o  de 1,2 g/kg la șobolani. Se oxidează rapid la persoanele sănătoase la acid benzoic, conjugat cu glicina în ficat e excretat ca acid hipuric. Concentrații foarte mari pot duce la efecte toxice, inclusiv insuficiență respiratorie, vasodilatație, hipotensiune arterială, convulsii și paralizie.

Alcoolul benzilic este toxic pentru nou-născuți, acesta fiind asociat cu sindromul respirației gâfâitoare.

Alcoolul benzilic este foarte toxic și extrem de iritant pentru ochi. Alcoolul benzilic pur produce necroză corneeană.

Alcoolul benzilic nu este considerat a fi un agent cancerigen și nu sunt disponibile date privind caracterul teratogen sau de toxicitate reproductivă.

Referințe

Legături externe

Arome
Ingrediente de parfum
Alcooli
Solvenți

Alcool benzilic


Brúnheiðir (fræðiheiti: Circus aeruginosus), einnig kallaður mýrheiðir, er tegund heiða.

Heimildaskrá

Heiðar

Brúnheiðir


Baron Aldington, of Bispham in the County Borough of Blackpool, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 29 January 1962 for the Conservative politician and businessman, Sir Toby Low. On 16 November 1999 he was made a life peer as Baron Low, of Bispham in the County of Lancashire, as were all hereditary peers of the first creation following the House of Lords Act 1999. On his death in 2000 the life peerage became extinct while he was succeeded in the hereditary barony by his son Charles, the second and () present holder of the title.

Lord Aldington was controversially accused of sending 70,000 cossacks and their families who had surrendered to the British forces in Austria after the Second World War over the border to the Soviets. This highly secret act contravened the Geneva Convention as they were not citizens of the USSR, and it was obvious that they would be massacred or sent to GULAGs. Aldington's superior was Harold Macmillan, the future prime minister, who has been accused of being an agent for Stalin. The historian Nikolai Tolstoy said as much in print and was sued by Aldington in 1989 for defamation. In a highly controversial court case, Aldington won and Tolstoy was asked to pay £1.5m in damages and £0.5m for Aldington's legal fees.

Barons Aldington (1962)
Toby Austin Richard William Low, 1st Baron Aldington, Baron Low (1914–2000)
Charles Harold Stuart Low, 2nd Baron Aldington (b. 1948)

The heir apparent and sole heir to the peerage is the present holder's son, Philip Toby Augustus Low (b. 1990)

Arms

References

Baronies in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
Noble titles created in 1962
Noble titles created for UK MPs

Baron Aldington


الحرب الباكستانية الهندية 1947–1948، وتعرف في بعض الأحيان باسم حرب كشمير الأولى، كانت قتالا بين الهند وباكستان على أراضي دولة جامو وكشمير الأميرية من 1947 إلى 1948. كانت هذه الحرب أول نزاع مسلح من الأربعة حروب حصلت بين الهند وباكستان اللتان كانتا أمتين حديثا الاستقلال. عجلت باكستان ببدأ الحرب بضعة أسابيع بعد استقلالها من خلال إدخال ميليشيات قبلية من منطقة وزيرستان، في محاولة لتأمين منطقة كشمير. نتيجة استمرار الحرب والنزاع على كشمير بعد نهايتها وعدم حسم أحد الطرفين لهذه الحرب، لا يزال هذا يؤثر على الجغرافيا السياسية لكلا البلدين.

واجه المهراجا انتفاضة المسلمين في بونش، وارتكب مذابح ضدهم في جامو، وفقد المهراجا السيطرة على المقاطعات الغربية من إمارته. وفي 22 أكتوبر 1947، عبرت الميليشيات القبلية المسلمة حدود المنطقة، بحجة أن هناك حاجة إلى قمع تمرد في جنوب شرق الإمارة. انتقلت هذه الميليشيات القبلية المحلية غير النظامية مع القوات الباكستانية لاحتلال سريناغار، لكن واجه جنودها مقاومة عند وصولهم إلى أوري. قدم هاري سينغ طلب مساعدة إلى الهند، وقبلت بذلك بشرط، هو أن يوقع وثيقة انضمام إمارته إلى الهند. شارك الضباط البريطانيين في شبه القارة الهندية أيضا في وقف تقدم الجيش الباكستاني.

خاضت قوات دولة جامو وكشمير الأميرية الحرب في البداية بقيادة اللواء سكوت وميليشيات قبلية من مقاطعة الحدود الشمالية الغربية (خيبر بختونخوا حاليا) والمناطق القبلية الخاضعة للإدارة الاتحادية. لمواجهة الاعتداء وثورة المسلمين في الحدود الغربية للإمارة، وقع حاكم دولة جامو وكشمير الأميرية، الذي كان هندوسيا، وثيقة الانضمام إلى اتحاد الهند. ثم دخلت الجيوش الهندية والباكستانية الحرب بعد ذلك. توطدت الجبهات تدريجيا على طول ما يعرف باسم «خط المراقبة». أعلن رسميا وقف إطلاق نار في 23:59 في ليلة 1 يناير 1949. كانت نتيجة الحرب غير حاسمة، ومع ذلك، فإن معظم عمليات التقييم المحايدة، تقر بأن الهند كانت هي المنتصرة بهذه الحرب حيث كانت قادرة على احتلال ثلثي كشمير بما في ذلك وادي كشمير، جامو ولداخ.

خلفية
قبل 1815، كانت المنطقة التي تعرف الآن باسم «جامو وكشمير» تتألف 22 دولة مستقلة صغيرة (16 هندوسية وستة مسلمة) اقتطعت من الأراضي التي سيطر عليها أمير (ملك) أفغانستان، جنبا إلى جنب مع حكام مناطق محلية صغيرة. كانت يشار إليها عامة باسم «ولايات تلال البنجاب». كانت هذه الدول الصغيرة يحكمها ملوك الراجبوت، كانت مستقلة، لكنها كانت تخدم إمبراطورية المغول منذ ذلك الوقت حيث كان يحكم الإمبراطور أكبر أو في بعض الأحيان دولة كانجرا في منطقة هيماشال. وفي أعقاب تفكك سلطنة مغول الهند، الاضطراب في كانجرا وغزوات جورخاس، سقطت ولايات تلال البنجاب على التوالي تحت سيطرة السيخ تحت قيادة رانجيت سينغ.

كانت الحرب الأنجلو–السيخية الأولى (1845–46) قتالا بين إمبراطورية السيخ والإمبراطورية البريطانية، التي أكدت السيادة على كشمير، وظهور شركة الهند الشرقية البريطانية. في المعاهدة التي وقعت في لاهور في 1846، أجبرت إمبراطورية السيخ على تسليم المنطقة (في جالندر دواب) التي تقع في ما بين نهر بيز ونهر سوتليج ودفع تعويض يصل إلى 1.2 مليون روبية. لأن السيخ لم يتمكنوا بسهولة من دفع هذا المبلغ، سمحت شركة الهند الشرقية البريطانية للحاكم غولاب سينغ الذي ينتمي إلى عائلة الدوغرا بالحصول على كشمير من إمبراطورية السيخ في مقابل دفع 750,000 روبية إلى الشركة. أصبح غولاب سينغ أول مهراجا لدولة جامو وكشمير الأميرية المنشأة حديثا، تأسست سلالة الدوغرا، التي حكمت هذه الدولة، والتي كانت ثاني أكبر إمارة خلال الحكم البريطاني، حتى أخد الهند لاستقلالها في 1947.

انضمام كشمير
كان تقسيم الهند البريطانية واستقلال دومينيونات الهند وباكستان الجديدة نتيجة قانون استقلال الهند في 1947. أكدت المادة 2 (4) من القانون المنصوص عليه بعد انتهاء الاستعمار البريطاني أن للدول الأميرية اعتبارا من 15 أغسطس 1947، حقها في اختيار ما إذا كانت تريد الانضمام إلى الهند أو إلى باكستان أو أن تبقى خارجهما. قبل وبعد انسحاب المملكة المتحدة من الهند، كانت هناك ضغوط على حاكم دولة جامو وكشمير الأميرية من كل من الهند وباكستان للاتفاق على الانضمام إلى أحد البلدين المستقلين حديثا. تجنب مهراجا كشمير، هاري سينغ، قرار الانضمام إلى أحد البلدين.

وهم المهراجا السكان المسلمين بانضمام إمارته إلى باكستان لكنه تحفظ على ذلك فثار المسلمون في بونش وميربور ضد المهراجا هاري سينغ، وازداد الوضع في الإمارة توترا وسوء خصوصا مع العنف الطائفي والمجازر ضد المسلمين في المناطق الشرقية من جامو. شهد واحد من أبرز الصحفيين الهنود على عمليات القتل الجماعي للمسلمين في جامو في المناطق الشرقية. تشكلت حكومة «آزاد كشمير» المؤقتة في منطقة بالاندري الموالية لباكستان ولتمرد السكان المحليين المعاديين للمهراجا. تركت حكومة آزاد كشمير وحدها مع 200,000 لاجئ مسلم من جامو وكشمير.

بعد مسلم ثورة المسلمين في بونش ومنطقة ميربور وتدخل قبائل البشتون من خيبر بختونخوا لدعم الثورة بدعم من باكستان طلب المهراجا المساعدة العسكرية الهندية. وقبلت بشرط التزام المهراجا باتفاق بينه وبين حكومة الهند يقضي بأن تنضم دولة جامو وكشمير الأميرية إلى الهند. وتم إرسال القوات الهندية إلى كشمير للدفاع عنها. وقام متطوعو «المؤتمر الوطني لجامو وكشمير» بمساعدة الجيش الهندي في حملته لطرد الميليشيات البشتونية.

رفضت باكستان الاعتراف بانضمام كشمير إلى الهند، مدعية أنه تم الحصول عليها بواسطة «الاحتيال والعنف». أمر الحاكم الجنرال محمد علي جناح قائد الجيش الجنرال دوغلاس جراسي بتحرك القوات الباكستانية إلى كشمير في نفس الوقت. ومع ذلك، لا تزال القوات الهندية والباكستانية تحت قيادة مشتركة، وأمر المشير أوكنليك بسحب هذا الأمر. ومع انضمامها إلى الهند، أصبحت كشمير أرضا هندية قانونيا، ولا يمكن أن يكون للضباط البريطانيين أي دور في الحرب بين الدومينيونات. وفر الجيش الباكستاني الأسلحة، الذخيرة والإمدادات لقوات المتمردين الذين كانوا يطلق عليهم اسم «جيش آزاد». ترك ضباط الجيش الباكستاني «المراحين» ووظف الضباط السابقين في الجيش الوطني الهندي لقيادة القوات. في مايو 1948، دخل الجيش الباكستاني رسميا الصراع، من الناحية النظرية، للدفاع عن حدود باكستان، إلا أنه كانت لديه خططا بذهابه نحو جامو لقطع خطوط الاتصالات الخاصة بالقوات الهندية في وادي ميهندار. في جيلجيت، تمردت قوة كشافة جيلجيت تحت قيادة الضابط الماجور البريطاني وليام براون وأطاحت بالمحافظ غانسارا سينغ. وأعلن براون مع تلك القوات التي كانت معه انضمامهم إلى باكستان. وكان يعتقد أنهم تلقوا مساعدات من قوات كشافة شيترال والحراس الشخصيين لدولة شيترال الخاصين بإمارة شيترال، واحدة من الدول الأميرية الباكستانية، التي انضمت إلى باكستان في 6 أكتوبر 1947.

مراحل الحرب

التمرد في بونش
في منطقة بونش، كان هناك عدد كبير من الجنود السابقين الذي كانوا قد خدموا في جيش الهند البريطانية في الحرب العالمية الثانية. كان معظم هؤلاء الجنود السابقين من أصل سودهاني الذين كان لهم منذ فترة طويلة علاقات سيئة مع نظام عائلة الدوغرا. وفي 21 أبريل 1947، زار المهراجا هاري سينغ راوالكوت، حيث ظهر عدد كبير من الجنود السابقين في موكب مع أسلحتهم. هذا أثار سلسلة من الهجمات الدفاعية من قبل هاري سينغ لنزع سلاح السكان المحليين وفرض سيطرة عسكرية أكثر صرامة. كان في منطقة بونش عند زيارة المهراجا 60,000 جندي سابق كانوا بتنظيم «الحرس الوطني» الذين من شأنهم مهاجمة جيش الدوغرا في الوقت المناسب. خلال الحرب، شكلت هذه المجموعة مجلس حرب في موري وأكثر كمية من الذخيرة كان يتم تهريبها من دارا آدم خيل. عدد كبير من المقاتلين من وزيرستان الواقعة في المناطق القبلية الخاضعة للإدارة الاتحادية أدخلوا من خلال جهات الاتصال محلية والجيش الباكستاني.

الغزو الأول

وقع أول اشتباك في ثورار في 3 – 4 أكتوبر 1947.

وفي 22 أكتوبر، تم إطلاق هجوم آخر في قطاع مظفر أباد. تمركزت قوات الإمارة في المناطق الحدودية في جميع أنحاء مظفر اباد ودوميل لكنها هزمت بسرعة من قبل القوات القبلية (بعضها من القوات الإسلامية المتمردة من الإمارة وبعضها انضمت لها) وأصبح الطريق إلى العاصمة مفتوحا. ومن بين المهاجمين، كان هناك العديد من الجنود النشطين في الجيش الباكستاني تحت إمرة القبائل. وقدمت لهم مساعدة لوجستية من قبل الجيش الباكستاني. بدلا من التقدم نحو سريناغار قبل قوات الإمارة التي يمكن تجميع صفوفهما أو تعزيزها، ظلت القوات الغازية تحتل المدن في منطقة الحدود وارتكاب جرائم نهب وجرائم أخرى ضد سكانها. في وادي بونش، تراجعت قوات الإمارة من المدن حيث تمت محاصرتها.

العملية الهندية في وادي كشمير
بعد الانضمام، نقلت الهند جوا قواتها مع معدات إلى سريناغار تحت قيادة اللفتنانت العقيد ديوان رانجيت راي، حيث عززت قوات الدولة الأميرية، التي أنشئت دفاعات على محيط المدينة وهزمت القوى القبلية في ضواحي المدينة. شملت أولى عمليات الدفاع، الدفاع الملحوظ عن بادغام للسيطرة على كل من العاصمة والمطار خلال الليل. تضمن الدفاع الناجح، مناورات الالتفاف التي قامت بها السيارات المدرعة الهندية خلال معركة شالاتينغ. سعت القوات القبلية المهزومة إلى دخول بارامولا وأوري وهذه المدن كحد أقصى، لكن أيضا، تم احتلالها.

في وادي بونش، واصلت القوات القبلية محاصرة قوات الإمارة.

في جيلجيت، القوات شبه العسكرية في الإمارة، المسماة كشافة جيلجيت، انضمت إلى القوات القبلية الغازية، التي سيطرت على المنطقة الشمالية من الإمارة. انضم أيضا للقوات القبلية قوات من شيترال، التي كانت تحت حكم مظفر الملك، مهتار شيترال، والتي انضمت إلى باكستان.

محاولة رفع الحصار عن بونش وسقوط ميربور
توقفت القوات الهندية عن التقدم في اتجاه القوى القبلية بعد إعادة احتلال أوري وبارامولا، وأرسلت إغاثات باتجاه الجنوب، في محاولة لتخفيف الضغط عن بونش بعد حصارها. على الرغم من أن وصول الإغاثات في نهاية المطاف إلى بونش، لم يرفع الحصار عنها. بلغت الإغاثات الثانية مدينة كوتلي، وأجليت الحاميات من المدينة مع آخرين لكنهم أجبروا على التخلي عن مناطقهم بسبب ضعف الدفاع عنها. وفي الوقت نفسه، سقطت ميربور في أيدي القوات القبلية في 25 نوفمبر 1947. اختطفت النساء الهندوسيات من قبل القوات القبلية وأخذت إلى باكستان. وتم بيعهم في بيوت الدعارة في روالبندي. قفزت حوالي 400 امرأة في الآبار في ميربور لينتحروا لكي لا يختطفوا.

سقوط جهانغير والهجمات في ناوشيرا وأوري
هاجمت القوات القبلية واحتلت جهانغير. ثم هاجمت ناوشيرا دون جدوى، وقامت بسلسلة من الهجمات غير الناجحة على أوري. في الجنوب، كان هناك هجوم هندي غير خطير لتأمين شامب. في هذه المرحلة من الحرب، بدأ خط الجبهة بالاستقرار كما أصبحت المزيد من القوات الهندية متاحة للخدمة.

عملية فيجاي: الهجوم المضاد على جهانغير
شنت القوات الهندية هجمة مرتدة في الجنوب لإعادة احتلال جهانغير وراجوري. في وادي كشمير، واصلت القوات القبلية مهاجمة حامية أوري. وأصبح شمال سكاردو تحت حصار من قبل قوة كشافة جيلجيت.

هجوم الربيع الهندي
هجم الهنود على جهانغير بسبب العديد من الهجمات المضادة التي كانت عليهم من قبل الميليشيات القبلية والتي كانت تقوم بها على نحو متزايد بدعم من القوات المسلحة الباكستانية. هاجم الهنود وادي كشمير، وأعادوا احتلال تيثويل. أحرزت قوة كشافة جيلجيت تقدما جيدا في قطاع جبال الهيمالايا المرتفعة، تسللت هاته القوات رغم أنها كانت تحت الحصار، احتلت كارجيل وهزمت القوات التي كانت تنقل الإغاثات لسكاردو.

عمليات غولاب وإيرازي
استمرر الهنود في الهجوم في قطاع وادي كشمير في الشمال واحتلوا كيران وغوريس (عملية إيرازي). كما صدوا هجمة مضادة على تيثوال. في منطقة جامو، بدأت القوات المحاصرة في بونش مؤقتا بالاتصال مع العالم الخارجي مرة أخرى. تمكن جيش إمارة جامو وكشمير من الدفاع عن سكاردو من قوة كشافة جيلجيت الذي أعيق تقدمها إلى أسفل وادي إندوس نحو منطقة ليه. في أغسطس، كانت قوة كشافة شيترال والحراس الشخصيين لشيترال تحت قيادة ماتا الملك قادرة على حصار مدينة سكاردو، ومع مساعدة من المدفعية، كانوا قادرين على احتلال سكاردو. هذا حرر قوة كشافة جيلجيت ودفع إلى جلب المزيد من القوات من لداخ.

عملية البيسون
بدأت الجبهة خلال هذا الوقت تستقر. استمر حصار بونش. وأطلق هجوم غير ناجح من اللواء المظلي 77 الهندي لاحتلال «زوجي لا». عملية البطة، كان هو لقب هذا الهجوم في وقت سابق، ثم تمت إعادة تسميته باسم عملية البيسون من قبل الجنرال كودانديرا مادابا كاريابا. تم نقل العديد من الدبابات عبر الجسور إلى سريناغار وحول طريق البغال عبر «زوجي لا» إلى طريق سيارات الجيب. بدأ الهجوم المفاجئ في 1 نوفمبر من قبل لواء مدرع بدعم من اثنين من أفواج البنادق من نوع 25 بوندرس وفوج من قياس 3.7 بوصة، وأجبر القوات الباكستانية / القبلية على التراجع إلى «ماتايان» وفيما بعد إلى «دراس». بقي اللواء حتى 24 نوفمبر في كارجيل مع القوات الهندية وتقدما إلى ليه في حين أن خصومهم في نهاية المطاف انسحبوا شمالا نحو سكاردو. هاجمت القوات الباكستانية سكاردو في 10 فبراير 1948 لكن صد هجومها من قبل الجنود الهنود. بعد ذلك، تعرضت حامية سكاردو لهجمات مستمرة من الجيش الباكستاني في الأشهر الثلاثة المقبلة وفي كل مرة، يتم صد الهجوم من قبل العقيد شير يونغ ثابا ورجاله. كان ثابا يدافع عن سكاردو بالكاد مع 250 رجل لستة أشهر طويلة دون أي تعزيزات أو تجديد للموارد. في 14 أغسطس، كان لا بد على الجنرال الهندي شير يونغ ثابا الاستسلام وتسليم سكاردو إلى الجيش الباكستاني. وانتهت سنة من الحصار الطويل.

عملية السهل؛ نهاية حصار بونش
أصبح للهنود اليد العليا في جميع المناطق. أخيرا، ارتاحت بونش من حصار استمر لأكثر من عام. هزمت قوات كشافة جيلجيت التي كانت في جبال الهيمالايا المرتفعة، والتي كانت قد أحرزت في السابق تقدما جيدا. واصل الهنود السعي إلى الوصول إلى أقصى حد إلى كارجيل قبل أن يجبروا على التوقف بسبب مشاكل في الإمدادات. لكنهم اضطروا إلى استخدام الدبابات لعبور «زوجي لا» (لم يكن هناك تفكير بهذا بسبب ارتفاع المنطقة) وأعيد احتلال دراس.

الذهاب إلى وقف إطلاق النار
بعد مفاوضات مطولة عن وقف لإطلاق النار، تم الاتفاق على ذلك من قبل كلا الدولتين، ودخل حيز التنفيذ. تم اعتماد شروط وقف إطلاق النار كما هي منصوص عليها في قرار الأمم المتحدة ليوم 13 أغسطس 1948 من قبل الأمم المتحدة في 5 يناير 1949. تطلب هذا سحب باكستان لقواتها، على حد سواء، العادية وغير النظامية، مع السماح للهند بالاحتفاظ بالحد الأدنى من قواتها في الإمارة للحفاظ على القانون والنظام. وبعد الامتثال لهذه الشروط، كان سيعقد استفتاء لتحديد مستقبل المنطقة. كانت الخسائر الهندية هي 1500 قتيل و3500 جريح، فيما كانت خسائر باكستان هي 6000 قتيل و14,000 جريح. سيطرت الهند على ثلثي كشمير وسيطرت باكستان على ما يقرب من ثلثها. معظم عمليات التقييم المحايدة، تقر بأن الهند كانت هي المنتصرة بهذه الحرب حيث كانت قادرة على احتلال ثلثي كشمير بما في ذلك وادي كشمير، جامو ولداخ.

الجوائز العسكرية

أوسمة المعارك
بعد الحرب، قدم ما مجموعه 11 وسام معركة ووسام مسرح أحداث واحد إلى وحدات الجيش الهندي، كان من بينها:
 جامو وكشمير 1947–48 (وسام مسرح أحداث)
 غوريس
 كارجيل
 ناوشيرا
 بونش
 راجوري
 سريناغار
 تيثويل
 زوجي لا

الأوسمة التذكارية
فيما يلي، قائمة من المستفيدين من جائزة بارام فير شيكرا الهندية، وجائزة نيشان حيدر الباكستانية وهي أوسمة تذكارية:

الهند:
 سوم ناث شارما (بعد الوفاة)
 كارام سينغ
 راما راغوبا راني
 جادو ناث سينغ
 بيرو سينغ شيخاوات

باكستان:
 محمد سرور

انظر أيضًا
 منطقة كشمير
 الحروب الباكستانية الهندية
 الحرب الباكستانية–الهندية 1965
 الحرب الباكستانية–الهندية 1971
 الحرب الصينية–الهندية

مراجع

ببليوغرافيا

مصادر رئيسية
 Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Operations in Jammu and Kashmir 1947–1948. (1987). Thomson Press (India) Limited, New Delhi. This is the Indian Official History.
 Lamb, Alastair. Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990. (1991). Roxford Books. ISBN 0-907129-06-4.
 Praval, K.C. The Indian Army After Independence. (1993). Lancer International, ISBN 1-897829-45-0.
 Schofield, Victoria (2003) [First published in 2000], Kashmir in Conflict, London and New York: I. B. Taurus & Co, ISBN 1860648983.
 Sen, Maj Gen L.P. Slender Was The Thread: The Kashmir confrontation 1947–1948. (1969). Orient Longmans Ltd, New Delhi.
 Vas, Lt Gen. E. A. Without Baggage: A personal account of the Jammu and Kashmir Operations 1947–1949. (1987). Natraj Publishers Dehradun. ISBN 81-85019-09-6.

مصادر أخرى
 Cohen, Lt Col Maurice. Thunder over Kashmir. (1955). Orient Longman Ltd. Hyderabad.
 Hinds, Brig Gen SR. Battle of Zoji La. (1962). Military Digest, New Delhi.
 Sandhu, Maj Gen Gurcharan. The Indian Armour: History Of The Indian Armoured Corps 1941–1971. (1987). Vision Books Private Limited, New Delhi, ISBN 81-7062-091-0.
 Ayub, Muhammad (2005). An army, Its Role and Rule: A History of the Pakistan Army from Independence to Kargil, 1947–1999. RoseDog Books. ISBN 9780805995947.

الهند في 1947
الهند في 1948
الهند في 1949
تاريخ آزاد كشمير
تاريخ باكستان
تاريخ باكستان العسكري
تاريخ جامو وكشمير
حروب الهند
حروب باكستان
حكومة لياقت علي خان
نزاع كشمير
نزاعات في 1947
نزاعات في 1948
نزاعات في 1949

الحرب الباكستانية الهندية 1947


An Pterostylis caulescens in uska species han Liliopsida nga ginhulagway ni Louis Otho Otto Williams. An Pterostylis caulescens in nahilalakip ha genus nga Pterostylis, ngan familia nga Orchidaceae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Pterostylis

Pterostylis caulescens


Doménica Cristina Tabacchi Rendón (Guayaquil, 21 de febrero de 1973) es una periodista y política ecuatoriana. Fue desde 2011 hasta 2019 vicealcaldesa de Guayaquil, siendo la primera mujer en ocupar el cargo.

Biografía
Nació el 21 de febrero de 1973 en la ciudad de Guayaquil, en la provincia del Guayas. Sus padres son Francesco Tabacchi Descalzi y Mónica Rendón, y su abuelo Francesco Tabacchi, quien fuera cónsul de Italia en Guayaquil. Sus estudios los realizó en el Colegio Liceo Panamericano de la ciudad de Guayaquil, y los estudios superiores los culminó en la Universidad Católica Santiago de Guayaquil, obteniendo el título de Abogada de los Tribunales y Juzgados de la República.

Se inició en la televisión a los 19 años, logrando al momento de su retiro 13 años ininterrumpidos dentro de Teleamazonas. Fue conductora de Vanidades TV, 24 Horas y un segmento comunitario dentro de dicho noticiario.

Actualmente se encuentra casada con Heinz Moeller Gómez, con quien contrajo matrimonio civil el 1 de septiembre de 2006. Luego de haber pasado por el fallecimiento de su primer esposo Rodrigo Campos Armijos en un accidente de tránsito en julio del 2004 y después de un luto de más de un año y medio. Tiene tres hijos, Rodrigo y Lorenzo Campos Tabacchi, quienes son fruto de su primer matrimonio, y Doménica Moeller Tabacchi, de su actual matrimonio.

Carrera política

Inicios en la política
En el año 2002, se lanza como candidata a Concejal de Guayaquil para las elecciones intermedias de aquel año por el Partido Social Cristiano, en las cuales obtiene una edil en el Concejo Cantonal de la ciudad. Fue reelegida en las elecciones municipales del 2004, 2009 y 2014.

Vicealcaldía de Guayaquil
Tras la salida de Guillermo Chang de la vicealcaldía de Guayaquil, el cual inició en el 2009, se convocó rápidamente a elección de un nuevo designado para el cargo el 4 de agosto de 2011. Considerando los reglamentos de los organismos municipales que establecen la alternabilidad de género para este cargo, se realizó la moción de Tabacchi como candidata por parte de la bancada del Partido Social Cristiano y Madera de Guerrero, y de Guadalupe Salazar por parte de Alianza País. La votación resultó con nueve votos a favor de Tabacchi y cinco para Salazar. Tabacchi asumió la vicealcaldía de Guayaquil en reemplazo de Chang por el bloque del movimiento Madera de Guerrero.

Como vicealcaldesa de Guayaquil encabeza la iniciativa de un frente femenino por la democracia y sin fines electorales. De esta forma, lideraba los encuentros denominados "Mujeres por la Unidad", que convoca a figuras políticas femeninas y ciudadanas para integrarse a trabajar por dicha causa, hasta la disolución de la coalición política en 2016.

Televisión

Referencias

Políticos de Guayaquil
Políticos del Partido Social Cristiano
Políticas de Ecuador
Presentadores de televisión de Ecuador
Concejales Cantonales de Guayaquil
Comunicadores de Guayaquil
Periodistas de Guayaquil
Alumnado de la Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil
Mujeres periodistas de Ecuador
Abogadas de Ecuador

Doménica Tabacchi


Philip David Wickham, nascido em 5 de abril de 1984, é um músico, cantor e compositor cristão contemporâneo de San Diego, Califórnia . Lançou nove álbuns: Give You My World em 2003, um álbum auto-intitulado em 2006; Cannons em 2007; Singalong em 2008, Heaven & Earth em 2009, Response no ano de 2011. Singalong 2 no ano de 2012. The Ascension em 2013, Sing-A-Long 3 no ano de 2015. Filhos de Deus no ano de 2016, Living Hope no ano de 2018 e Hymn Of Heaven no ano de 2021. O cantor Phil Wickham também dirigiu o culto no Soul Survivor. Seu single foi aclamado pela crítica. A música This is the Amazing Grace tornou-se um disco Platina certificado pela RIAA e, liderou a parada Christian Airplay, no final do ano de 2014.

Biografia
Phil Wickham foi criado em um lar evangélico, o segundo de três filhos (irmão Evan, irmã Jillian), e começou a liderar o culto para seu grupo de jovens aos 13 anos de idade.  No ano de 2002, graduou-se na Calvary Christian School em Vista, Califórnia. A partir desta data, o pai de Wickham é um líder de adoração, e os pais dele eram membros da banda do movimento parábola de Jesus ao mesmo tempo. O irmão mais velho dele, Evan Wickham,  também é um músico, que costumava servir na Calvary Chapel em Vista, e, mais tarde se tornou pastor da Park Hill Church na cidade de São Diego, Califórnia.

Phil Wickham frequenta a Harvest Christian Fellowship cujo pastor é Greg Laurie.

Wickham começou uma carreira musical em tempo integral em turnê pelo estado da Califórnia, e, gravando seu primeiro álbum, Give You My World, em 2003; após esse lançamento, O cantor Phil Wickham assinou com a Simple Records. Também lançou o álbum de estréia auto-intitulado no ano de 2006. O segundo lançamento de Phil Wickham com a Simple/INO Records, Cannons, foi lançado no ano de 2007. Cannons foi parcialmente inspirada por explosões de canhões e pelo livro de C.S. Lewis The Voyage of the Dawn Treader da série The Chronicles of Narnia. Wickham afirmou em uma entrevista que o albúm é "sobre como o universo está explodindo com a glória de Deus, e como somos obrigados a nos juntar à sua música". A décima faixa de Cannons, "Jesus, o Senhor do Céu", foi traduzida para sete idiomas diferentes. Em 8 de agosto de 2008, o ele lançou um álbum de adoração ao vivo, Singalong, gravado na Solid Rock Church na cidade de Portland, Oregon, com 3.000 pessoas presentes. O álbum foi disponibilizado para download gratuito em seu site. O álbum recebeu mais de 8.000 downloads em uma semana depois do lançamento. Após o lançamento Singalong, seu álbum auto-intitulado atingiu o 25º lugar nas vendas de álbuns evangélicos da iTunes Store, dois anos após seu lançamento inicial.

No mês de fevereiro do ano de 2016, o cantor lançou o primeiro single ("Your Love Awakens Me"), do seu álbum, Children of God , que foi lançado no final daquele ano. Living Hope, o sétimo projeto de estúdio completo do compositor, foi lançado no mês de agosto do ano de 2018. O álbum estreou em primeiro lugar na parada de álbuns cristãos da Billboard, sendo seu primeiro álbum a chegar lá.

Outras atividades
Na metade da década de 2010, Phil Wickham foi um dos líderes de adoração na semana C do Soul Survivor e, no Momentum Festival, no Reino Unido.

Referências

Pessoas vivas
Nascidos em 1984

Phil Wickham


Otoregresif hareketli ortalamalar modelleri (İngilizce:"autoregressive moving averages (ARMA) models"), istatistik biliminde George Box ve Gwilym Jenkins'e ithafen Box-Jenkins modelleri olarak da bilinen zaman serisi kestirimi ve öngörme yöntemi olup eşit zaman aralıklarında gözlenen zaman serisi verilerinde uygulanır.

Xt şeklinde bir zaman serisi verisi (datası) verildiğinde, ARMA modeli, serinin gelecek dönemlerdeki değerlerini anlamak ve hatta öngörmek için kullanılır. Model iki kısımdan oluşur. Bunlardan birisi otoregresif kısım (AR), diğeri ise hareketli ortalamalar kısmıdır. Model, genellikle p otoregresif kısmın derecesi, q ise hareketli ortalama kısmının derecesi olmak üzere ARMA(p,q) modeli şeklinde gösterilir.

Otoregresif, AR(p), model
AR(p) ifadesi p. dereceden otoregresif bir modeli tanımlar. AR(p) modeli şöyle gösterilir:

, modelin parametrelerini; , sabit terimi;  ise hata terimini simgeler. Pek çok yazar tarafından basitleştirme maksadıyla sabit terim ihmal edilir. Modelin durağan olması için parametreler üzerinde kısıtlamaya gidilmelidir. Örneğin |φ1| > 1 durumunun geçerli olduğu bir AR(1) modeli durağan değildir.

Örnek: AR(1) süreci

AR(1) süreci:

şeklinde tanımlanır. , beyaz gürültülü ve 0 ortalamaya sahip  varyanslı bir süreçtir. Eğer,  sağlanırsa süreç kovaryans durağandır. Eğer  sağlanıyorsa süreç birim kök içermektedir ve durağan olduğu söylenemez.  durumu aynı zamanda rassal yürüyüş olarak da bilinen özel bir durumdur. Bu özel durumda  için "beklenen değeri" hesaplamak mümkün değildir.

AR parametrelerinin hesaplanması

denklemi ile verilen bir AR(p) modeli  parametrelerine dayanır. Bu parametreler Yule-Walker denklemleri ile hesaplanır:

m = 0...p olup sonuçta p+1 tane denklem ortaya çıkar. , X'in otokorelasyon fonksiyonu olup  girdi gürültü sürecinin standart hatasıdır. δm ise Kronecker Delta Fonksiyonu'nu gösterir.

Denklemin son kısmı yalnızca m=0 olma durumunda sıfırdan farklı olacağından, denklem m>0 koşulunu sağlayan bir matris şeklinde ifade edilerek çözülür.

m=0 için bütün ler elde edildiğinde.

ifadesi ortaya çıkar ki bu  değerini bulmamızı sağlar.

Hareketli ortalamalar. MA(q), modeli

MA(q) ifadesi, q. dereceden bir hareketli ortalamalar modelini ifade eder

θ1, ..., θq modelin parametreleridir εt, εt-1,... modelin hata terimleridir. Bundan açıktır ki "hareketli ortalamalar" modelinde belirli bir zaman noktasındaki bir zaman serisi değişkeninin değeri (yani t'de Xt değeri) q tane daha önceki her bir zaman noktasıda yapılan hataların (yani her t zaman noktası için i gecikmeli ε<t-i hatasının) ağırlıklı olarak bileştirilmesi ile açıklanmaktadır.

Otoregresif hareketli ortalamalar, ARMA(p,q), modeli

Bu model, AR(p) and MA(q) modellerinin bir birleşimidir,

şeklinde gösterilir.

Modelin tahmini
Model sadece AR(p) ile kurulursa "Yule-Walker denklemleri" çözüm için yeterli olacaktır ARMA(p,q) şeklinde bir model kurulduğunda ise önce p ve q değerlerinin kaç olacağına karar verilir, yâni kaç adet gecikmeli değişken kullanılacağı önem kazanır. Genelde p ve q'nun küçük seçilmesi tavsiye edilir. p ve q sayıları seçildikten sonra ise model en küçük kareler yöntemi ile tahmin edilebilir.

Notlar

Dış bağlantılar
 Box,George Box, Gwilym M. Jenkins, Gregory C. Reinsel ve Lon-Mu Liu (2009), Time Series Analysis, 4.ed.. Pearson Education, ISBN 0-13-147142-2
 Mills, Terence C. ve Raphael N. Markellos (2008) The Econometric Modelling of Financial Time Series 3.ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-71009-X

Zaman serisi analizi
Gürültü

Otoregresif hareketli ortalamalar modeli