San Fernando Valley Audubon Society supports the National Audubon Society’s efforts to forestall harmful changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and has signed on to the letter below. You can add your name to oppose efforts to weaken the ESA by following this link. The ESA protects the habitat of threatened and endangered species, like our own Least Bell’s Vireo, pictured above. Sadly a proposal is pending that would weaken the law. The proposed rule to remove the definition of “harm” under Endangered Species Act regulations could be devastating to a vast number of birds and other wildlife by weakening protections for habitat. This proposed rule could open the door to habitat loss for some of our most vulnerable species and discourage proactive measures, making it harder for species to recover.
To the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service:
The National Audubon Society, on behalf of our 1.9 million members and supporters and the undersigned XX chapters, submit these comments to oppose the proposed rule to rescind the definition of “harm” under Endangered Species Act regulations, and urge the agencies to not move forward with this proposed rule.
Habitat protection is essential for the conservation and recovery of birds and other wildlife. Given the severe risks facing threatened and endangered species, these protections are especially necessary for preventing their extinction and helping them recover as soon as possible. With the ability to protect habitat, the ESA has demonstrated that species can recover and be delisted.
The impact of this rule could be devastating to a vast number of birds and other wildlife. Bird populations are in decline, with a loss of 3 billion birds in North America since 1970, and numerous species of birds are now listed under the ESA, primarily due to habitat loss. This rule could lead to additional habitat loss for some of our most vulnerable species, and discourage proactive measures, which will only make it harder for species to recover.
According to the 2022 State of the World’s Birds Report, the most important threat facing globally threatened birds is habitat conversion and degradation, impacting 95% of these bird species. Additionally, another 2022 study reviewing 90 years of data from Audubon’s Christmas Bird Count found that habitat loss and degradation is the primary driver of population declines.
The ESA’s clear intent is to protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species. The definition of “harm” that includes habitat protection is necessary for achieving the purposes of the law including “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved”. This definition was upheld by the Supreme Court, and it’s also rooted in science and common sense: disturbing or destroying habitat that an endangered species depends on for breeding, shelter, and feeding certainly “harms” the species.
Birds, especially migratory species, will be particularly impacted by this definition change; for example, it could allow the conversion of a migratory bird’s breeding habitat while it is away on its wintering grounds. Returning birds would find themselves deprived of habitat they need to survive.
Rescinding the regulatory definition of “harm” does not change the foundational provisions in the Endangered Species Act; rather, this regulatory change would cause confusion and misunderstanding around how the act should be applied, resulting in uncertainty for industry and an increase in litigation.
The ESA’s habitat protections help incentivize the development of critical conservation tools to engage and provide certainty to landowners, such as Habitat Conservation Plans, which facilitate economic development while providing additional habitat benefits to impacted species, along with Candidate Conservation Agreements, which can help encourage beneficial practices on the ground to help reduce the need for listing.
To ensure the continued survival and recovery of our birds and other wildlife, we ask that you do not issue a final rule that rescinds the definition of “harm”.