Conservation groups vow lawsuit over narrowed ESA definition
The Trump administration on Friday rescinded a provision of the Endangered Species Act that for 50 years had protected habitat crucial to imperiled wildlife, drawing vows of legal action from environmental advocates.
The rule change revises the ESA’s definition of “harm,” which since the law’s enactment in 1973 had included not only direct injury to a specific species but also modification or degradation of its habitat. The new definition limits “harm” to “actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife,” according to a statement from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Burgum said in the statement. “That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.”
The Interior secretary described the action as restoring “common sense” that “respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed.”
The Endangered Species Act, enacted in 1973, has been credited by conservation experts with preventing the extinction of numerous species, including the whooping crane, bald eagle and gray wolf.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said the group would challenge the rule change in court. “For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Boyles said in a statement.
“Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support,” Boyles added. “We will see the Trump administration in court.”