Comment: Opposition to the Proposed Rule to Rescind the Definition of "Harm" Under the Endangered Species Act

public commentsrestorationbiodiversity
Written By Environmental Policy Innovation Center

EPIC submitted a letter opposing the rescission of “habitat modification” from the definition of harm due to the significant impacts for stakeholders with a reliant interest on the existing definition - in particular organizations involved in restoration activities, and Tribes. Our comments below are based on research conducted over the last six years on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), mitigation policies related to the ESA, and tribal opportunities for participation in compensatory mitigation. The main concerns we have are related to economic reliance interests (#1-3), and the impact on Tribes and tribal restoration activities (#4-5):

  1. Monetary Scale of Species Restoration

  2. Broader Economic Impact

  3. Recent Investment Data

  4. Tribal Treaty Rights to Fishing, and Commercial Fisheries Compromised

  5. Investments in Restoring Salmon Populations are Compromised

Environmental Policy Innovation Center
Previous

The ESA Edit That Could Affect an $800 Million Species Offset Market and Undermine Decades of Tribal Salmon Recovery
Next

California’s restoration bottleneck deepens biodiversity debt