On July 10 the Trump administration issued a final rule that alters the way agencies account for threatened species in their permitting and regulatory reviews. The change eliminates regulatory language intended to prevent damage to wildlife habitats, narrowing the scope of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in agency decision-making.
The departments of Interior and Commerce described the final rule as a measure that will lower permitting and compliance costs for a range of economic interests, including energy producers, farms and fishing operations. Officials framed the adjustment as consistent with President Donald Trumps broader agenda to reduce regulatory burdens that he says constrain American businesses.
"This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed," Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement released alongside the rule.
The ESA, now about 50 years old, is a central regulatory consideration when agencies assess whether to issue permits for activities on federal lands and waters. The law requires agencies to evaluate the impact of proposed oil and gas development, mining, electric transmission and other operations on threatened and endangered species.
The final rule removes habitat destruction from the definition of the word "harm" in the ESA. Under the revised text, project developers would be permitted to impair places where species live so long as the rule is interpreted to mean wildlife are not directly injured or killed. The proposal for this change was first put forward in April of last year.
Summary
- The administration finalized a rule narrowing habitat protections under the ESA by removing habitat destruction from the definition of "harm."
- Interior and Commerce officials say the change will reduce permitting and compliance costs for energy, agriculture and fishing sectors.
- The ESA is a key factor in permitting decisions for oil and gas, mining, electric transmission and other federal land and water uses.
Context and effects described in the rule
The departments assert the change reduces regulatory burdens on landowners and businesses while aligning agency practice with their reading of the statute. The rule alters the criteria agencies use when reviewing proposed operations that could affect threatened and endangered species, by excluding habitat impairment from the regulatory definition of harm.