Urgent: Trump Admin. is cutting habitat destruction ban in Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are proposing to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They claim the existing regulatory definition of “harm,” which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term “take.”
The proposed rule would remove habitat modification from the definition of “harm”.
The agencies argue that the current definition extends beyond the plain meaning of the statutory term “take,” which refers to direct actions like killing or capturing a species.
They maintain that focusing on the statutory definition of “take” provides the “single, best meaning” of the ESA and further elaboration on “harm” is unnecessary.
Environmentalists see habitat destruction as the biggest threat to endangered species, which includes several of pollinating bees and butterflies.
Potential Impacts:
Reduced Protections: Removing habitat destruction from the definition of “harm” would potentially weaken protections for endangered and threatened species.
Increased Development: It could make it easier to pursue activities like logging, mining, and construction projects in areas that are currently considered critical habitat for endangered species.
Species Extinction: Environmental groups argue this could lead to habitat loss, a major driver of species extinction, potentially harming wildlife and ultimately causing a decline in biodiversity.
Legal Challenges: The proposed rule is expected to face strong opposition and legal challenges from environmental and conservation groups.
The government’s arguments for the Change:
Reduced Regulatory Burden: Supporters of the change, including industry groups, argue the current definition has hindered development and economic activity.
Narrower Interpretation: They believe focusing on a stricter, more direct interpretation of “take” aligns more closely with the original intent of the ESA.
Alignment with Supreme Court Decision: The agencies also point to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended the Chevron deference to agency interpretations of statutes.
Here is the proposed change and information about how to comment published in the Federal Register. Send comments by May 19.