You have only a few days to protect the habitats of threatened and endangered species!
Decades ago the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) finalized the specific definition of the term “harm” within the Endangered Species Act (ESA) – clarifying that actions including “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” are to be prohibited.
The Trump administration is proposing a rule change that threatens to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by rescinding the definition of “harm,” putting animals and plants across the nation at risk.
Put simply, the removal of a clear definition would undermine the power of the ESA to protect species from extinction. This change increases the chances that habitats could shrink or be fragmented, critical plant species could be removed, or other modifications could be made, all of which can create unsuitable habitats for threatened and endangered species.
Habitat loss is the number one cause of species decline and extinction. Removing clearly defined habitat protections could reverse decades of conservation gains and push vulnerable species closer to extinction. This change very clearly ignores scientific understanding and legal precedent.
You can take action to protect the ESA today! Until May 19th, The USFWS is accepting public comments on this change. Submit your comment today to protect the habitats of threatened and endangered species! We have included steps on how to submit a comment and prepared a sample comment below.
How to submit a public comment through the USFWS Portal in Regulations.gov:
- Copy the suggested comment below and click this link to access the portal.
- No need to attach a file unless you are submitting a personalized comment.
- Submit your email address
- Select your identity (suggested: Individual unless you are representing an organization.)
- Complete the contact information fields that populate.
- Click the I’m not a robot checkbox and hit submit comment
Sample Comment to Copy and Paste into the USFWS Portal:
As a concerned citizen, I strongly oppose the proposed rule to change the long-standing definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The current definition, supported by sound science and legal interpretation, appropriately recognizes that habitat modification and destruction can cause harm to threatened and endangered species. Excluding habitat modification from the definition of harm could drastically weaken one of the ESA’s most effective and widely used protections. Without question, this change could threaten the survival and recovery of endangered species, and could inadvertently fast track many species onto the list. Species we cannot afford to lose. Additionally, the recovery of listed species could become much more difficult and costly as more essential habitat could be impacted or lost. Protecting habitat is essential to avoid future ESA listings.
There is long-standing scientific documentation that habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation are the leading cause of species declines in the US and globally. It is not only over-harvesting or direct impacts to individual plants and animals that result in the decline of a species. The greatest threats – the degradation and loss of their habitat, critical feeding, sheltering, breeding, and/or nesting grounds – bring species to the brink of extinction. Furthermore, the current interpretation of the definition of harm, to include impacts to habitats, has been utilized by the USFWS for decades. This interpretation has even been upheld in a case before the US Supreme Court.
In Illinois, the survival of federally endangered species, like the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), over a dozen mussel species, the Indiana (Myotis sodalis) and Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis), are dependent on the ESA protections offered to these species, including protections to the habitats on which they depend. I urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to withdraw this proposed rule and maintain the current definition of “harm” to ensure the continued protection of our nation’s most vulnerable wildlife.
