1. United States
2. Md.
3. Letter

I am writing to oppose your proposal to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat destruction is the main driver of species decline. When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, it explicitly recognized the importance of habitat in protecting and restoring endangered species. And the definition of harm you seek to delete was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court 30 years ago. If anything, the case for habitat protection under the ESA has grown even stronger since then, with mountains of scientific evidence linking habitat and species’ survival. There is no rational reason to rescind this definition; rescission only serves as an invitation to timber, oil, mining and other extractive industries, as well as the government and individuals, to try to destroy habitat that endangered species need to live, eat, and raise their young. Common sense, science, and the ESA itself tells us that habitat destruction harms species. Just one company or project can destroy habitat, but when a species disappears, we all suffer the consequences, which can include impacts to our food and water supply, to industries ranging from pharmaceuticals to tourism, and to our cultural and spiritual values.