The U.S. President Donald Trump\u2019s administration recently finalized a rule that narrows what qualifies as \u201charm\u201d under the Endangered Species Act. Under the new definition of harm, only actions that directly harm or kill endangered species will be prohibited. Until recently, the definition of harm also included damaging the habitat endangered wildlife depend on for food and shelter.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis rule change is ludicrous. A kindergartener could explain that destroying an animal\u2019s home will harm the animal,\u201d Tierra Curry, endangered species co-director with the U.S.- based nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, told Mongabay in an email.<\/p>\n
The Endangered Species Act is a bedrock U.S. environmental law established more than 50 years ago. The law prohibits any person to \u201ctake\u201d endangered species. \u201cTake\u201d has widely been interpreted to prohibit both directly killing or harming endangered species and damaging the habitat that is essential for their survival. That interpretation was upheld by a\u00a01995 Supreme Court\u00a0case involving spotted owls which ruled that harm also includes \u201csignificant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.\u201d<\/p>\n
The new rule abandons that longstanding interpretation.<\/p>\n
\u201cActions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited,\u201d the U.S. Department of Interior and the Department of Commerce said in\u00a0their announcement. However,\u00a0\u201c[t]he final rule will reduce unnecessary permitting, cut compliance costs, and eliminate confusion for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments,\u201d it stated.<\/p>\n
Tawny Bridgeford, the general counsel and senior vice president of the National Mining Association, an industry trade group, welcomed the narrow interpretation. \u201c[T]he definition of \u2018harm\u2019 has long been abused to serve as a punitive obstacle impeding critical projects,\u201d Bridgeford told the\u00a0New York Times.<\/p>\n
However,\u00a0environmental groups warn\u00a0that the new definition of harm paves the way for land development including agriculture, logging, mining and oil and gas projects in habitats where endangered species live.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0\u00a0U.S. Geological Survey, a federal scientific agency, acknowledges that \u201c[h]abitat loss is the primary cause of higher extinction\u00a0rates.\u201d Without safe habitat many endangered species could be pushed closer to extinction, just as\u00a0scientists warn\u00a0of a sixth mass extinction.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis absurd slashing of protection means that the rivers where candy darters swim could be choked with coal mining waste, forests Pacific martens need could be clearcut, burrows of desert tortoises could be bulldozed for development, and oil drilling could ravage the habitat of polar bears,\u201d Curry said.<\/p>\n
The environmental law non-profit Earthjustice has said it plans to sue the administration. \u201cThis senseless rule has no scientific or legal basis,\u201d Earthjustice said in a\u00a0statement.\u00a0\u201cWe will see the administration in court.\u201d<\/p>\n
Curry said the Center for Biological Diversity also plans to \u201ctake urgent legal action to prevent harm to species from this political nonsense.\u201d<\/p>\n