Changes to ESA rules

[SAJ-99]

After listening to @Big Fin and Corey on Elk Talk discuss habitat management and the Roadless Rules and Randy saying “we still have the ESA”, I wonder if this changes his mind at all? Under the new definition of harm you just have to show you don’t kill the endangered animal directly. Habitat changes will be given a lot of flexibility.

The Center for Biological Diversity is suing and I have to say I’m rooting for them on this one. We somehow have to find a better way of doing this than court battles, but right now that seems to be the only tool.

Department of the Interior Restores Clear ESA Enforcement by Rescinding Misguided “Harm” Definition | U.S. Department of the Interior

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce today announced they have finalized a rule rescinding the outdated regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act.

www.doi.gov

 

[IDiot]

Very disappointing, there's so much bad news it's hard to keep track of it all.

 

[El Jason]

This will be very significant.

 

[Nick87]

This will be very significant.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I'm still without words on this one. Why on God's green earth do people think most endangered species are endangered? Because they are being shot or run over? Once again, this admin is treating the public like they are stupid. ESA has gotten in the way of developers for far too long in their minds and now they are doing something about it. un ....... believable.

 

[El Jason]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes Rescinding Definition of “Harm” Under ESA – National Agricultural Law Center

nationalaglawcenter.org

For better or worse, it will greatly diminish the consideration of habitat impacts on ESA populations. As an example, a listed wild steelhead population may not be considered in a proposed project that alters fish habitat, unless the burden of proof shows it will directly result in “take”.

Likewise, a travel plan proposal that allows motorized travel in a core habitat area for animals such as lynx, woodland caribou, or grizzly bears likely will not be subject to challenges based on the impact the proposal will have on ESA species. The caveat is now the allegation of harm has the burden of proof to show it will directly result in the death of ESA animals.

 

[Nick87]

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes Rescinding Definition of “Harm” Under ESA – National Agricultural Law Center

nationalaglawcenter.org

For better or worse, it will greatly diminish the consideration of habitat impacts on ESA populations. As an example, a listed wild steelhead population may not be considered in a proposed project that alters fish habitat, unless the burden of proof shows it will directly result in “take”.

Likewise, a travel plan proposal that allows motorized travel in a core habitat area for animals such as lynx, woodland caribou, or grizzly bears likely will not be subject to challenges based on the impact the proposal will have on ESA species. The caveat is now the allegation of harm has the burden of proof to show it will directly result in the death of ESA animals.

Thanks.

 

[El Jason]

Post in thread 'Letter from western legislators to delist Grizzly bears'

May 14, 2025

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on April 17, 2025, published "Rescinding the Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act."1 The main purpose of the proposed rule is to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" currently found in agency regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which includes significant habitat modification that directly or indirectly harms species by impairing essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding or sheltering. The agencies argue that defining "harm" is...

• El Jason

Development that hinders migration and promotes genetic diversity will not receive the same consideration. As we discussed in this thread. I think the likelihood of removing grizzly bears from the endangered species list is much higher. However, I’m not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. Admittedly, that is my pessimistic and jaded view on project 2025 this administration.