Destroying endangered species’ habitat wouldn’t count as ‘harm’ under proposed Trump rule

The Trump administration is proposing to significantly limit the Endangered Species Act’s power to preserve crucial habitats by changing the definition of one word: harm.

On Wednesday, the administration proposed a rule change that would essentially prohibit only actions that directly hurt or kill actual animals, not the habitats they rely on. If finalized, the change could make it easier to log, mine and build on lands that endangered species need to thrive.

Habitat loss is the biggest single cause of extinction and endangered species — it makes sense to address it,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. He called efforts to deny that cause “callous and reckless.”

“Any conservation gains species were making will be reversed — we’re going to see losses again,” he said.

Under the Endangered Species Act, it’s illegal to “take” an endangered species. By law, “take” is defined to mean actions that harass, harm, or kill species. For decades, federal agencies have interpreted “harm” broadly, to include actions that modify or degrade habitats in ways that impair endangered species’ ability to feed, breed or find shelter.

That interpretation has been a crucial part of how the Endangered Species Act has protected over 1,700 species since its passage in 1973, said Hartl. It’s helped preserve spawning grounds for Atlantic Sturgeon, allowing them to mate and sustain the population. It’s protected old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest that house northern spotted owls and red-cockaded woodpecker, saving them from extinction.

In the 1990s, timber companies that wanted to harvest those old-growth forests challenged the government’s broad interpretation of harm. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld that interpretation in a 6-3 decision.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with that interpretation. He argued that in the context of wild animals, “take” should be interpreted more literally, as an affirmative act directed against a particular animal, not an act that indirectly causes injury to a population.

The Trump administration cites Scalia’s argument in its proposal, saying it’s “undertaking this change to adhere to the single, best meaning of the ESA.”

Conservation experts argue it makes no sense to adopt such a narrow definition of harm. “If you’re a prairie chicken in the southwest, and there’s an oil and gas developer and they want to destroy your prime breeding display grounds, the bird can’t mate,” said Hartl.

“You’re not actually harming any of them directly,” he said, but the end result is essentially the same.

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed rule change. The move will also likely be challenged in court.

 

Trump is silent about Juneteenth on a day he previously honored as president

President Trump honored Juneteenth in each of his first four years as president, even before it became a federal holiday. On this year's Juneteenth holiday on Thursday, the president kept silent.

An appeals court backs Trump’s control of the California National Guard for now

The ruling maintains a block on a lower court's order that found President Trump was using the Guard in LA illegally in his immigration crackdown.

Federal judge says Trump administration can’t block state funding over immigration

The ruling comes ahead of a grant application deadline on June 20, which would have required states to agree to enforce the Trump administration's immigration agenda or lose transportation funding.

A former plantation becomes a space for healing, art and reparative history

Through a powerful blend of creative interpretation and ancestral memory, an Alabma town reckons with its past and begins to write a new chapter of shared truth.

Deadly listeria outbreak leads to recall of ready-to-eat fettuccine Alfredo meals

A nationwide listeria outbreak has been linked to 17 illnesses, and three deaths, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection.

As courts review military in L.A., immigration enforcement accelerates

Immigration enforcement speeds up in L.A. regardless of military presence

More Environment Coverage