Biden Administration Tosses Trump Definition of ‘Habitat’ for Endangered Species

The definition ofhabitat for animals under threat of extinction is being thrown out by the Biden administration.

By striking a single sentence from the regulations, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was able to protect a critical habitat even if it had become unsuitable because of development or other changes.

The definition of "habitat" was narrowed by the Trump administration to only places that can sustain an extinction-level species.

Wildlife officials say the rule was at odds with the purpose of the act.

"For some species that are on the verge of extinction due to habitat loss or climate change, we need every tool in the toolbox to be able to protect the remaining habitats that could be suitable."

The designation of a critical habitat does not restrict activity on private land unless federal funding is involved.

An estimated million plant and animal species around the world are at risk of extinction. Habitat loss is one of the main causes. The problem is worsened by pollution and climate change.

The change by the Biden administration is the first of several expected reversals of the Trump administration's rules. The second rule is related to habitat needs. They proposed a new rule in June that would allow regulators to introduce experimental populations of animals outside their historic ranges in order to strengthen the protection of species in a changing climate.

There are unclear plans for the sweeping changes to the way the Endangered Species Act is applied. The rules allow regulators to consider economic factors in decisions on species protection and make it easier to remove animals and plants from the list.

The National Association of Home Builders, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Western Energy Alliance welcomed the changes.

There is a pending legal challenge to the set of rules.

According to an attorney for Earthjustice, the Biden administration is still missing in action because of the harmful rules that have been in place for almost three years. The agencies use them because they have to use the regulations that are in place.

The changes were to be reconsidered a year ago. They are waiting for the court to rule on the regulations.

The office of protected resources decided not to propose a rule that would have to be revised based on a court decision.