Answers are excerpts from an article originally published in The Conversation.
What is the Endangered Species Act?
The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, bans the ‘take’ of ‘any endangered species of fish or wildlife,’ which includes harming protected species.
For 50 years, the U.S. government has interpreted the Endangered Species Act as protecting threatened and endangered species from actions that either directly kill them or eliminate their habitat. Most species on the brink of extinction are on the list because there is almost no place left for them to live. Their habitats have been paved over, burned or transformed. Habitat protection is essential for their survival.
Since 1975, regulations have defined ‘harm’ to include habitat destruction that kills or injures wildlife.
In short, the law says ‘take’ includes harm, and under the existing regulatory definition, harm includes indirect harm through habitat destruction.
Why does habitat protection matter?
Habitat protection is the single most important factor in the recovery of endangered species in the United States — far more consequential than curbing direct killing alone.
Globally, a 2022 study found that habitat loss threatened more species than all other causes combined.
A 2019 study examining the reasons species were listed as endangered between 1975 and 2017 found that only 17% were primarily threatened by direct killing, such as hunting or poaching. In contrast, a staggering 81% were listed because of habitat loss and degradation.
As natural landscapes are converted to agriculture or taken over by urban sprawl, logging operations and oil and gas exploration, ecosystems become fragmented and the space that species need to survive and reproduce disappears. Currently, more than 107 million acres of land in the U.S. are designated as critical habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed species.
What are the proposed changes?
The Trump administration is seeking to change that definition of ‘harm’ in a way that leaves out habitat modification.
This narrowed definition would undo the most significant protections granted by the Endangered Species Act.
The rule change the Trump administration quietly proposed could green-light the destruction of protected species’ habitats, making it nearly impossible to protect those endangered species.
The administration has also refused to conduct the required analysis of the environmental impact that changing the definition could have. That means the American people won’t even know the significance of this change to threatened and endangered species until it’s too late — though, if approved, it will certainly end up in court.