This is tomorrow. And it's worse than this post implies - it goes beyond habitat.
Scalia's acolytes plan on weakening regulation to a degree that the only immediate and intentional capture or killing of a particular individual member of an endangered species can be a violation.
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering
2. Amend § 17.3 by removing the definition for “Harm”.
So that paragraph would no longer apply. In order to violate the new version, it would
require an “affirmative act[ ] . . . directed immediately and intentionally against a particular animal—not [an] act[ ] or omission[ ] that indirectly and accidentally cause[s] injury to a population of animals.”
Paving a sea turtle nesting site to build a beach resort? Legal, because you didn't immediately and intentionally kill or capture sea turtles.
Poisoning prairie dogs in the last remaining blackfooted ferret territory? Legal, because you didn't immediately and intentionally damage the ferrets, just their food supply.
Cut down a California condor nesting site?
Blast apart a mountainside full of marmot burrows?
Spray insecticides across fields of migrating butterflies or native bee habitat?
Trigger underwater explosions near whale nurseries?
Because if it wasn't aimed at a particular animal, it's all permissible per this gutted iteration of the Endangered Species act, because the only harm that would count is, again,
directed immediately and intentionally against a particular animal
Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/.
In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button.
On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document.
You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment.”
