On May 19, ASLA submitted formal comments opposing a proposed rule that would weaken protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by eliminating habitat destruction from the definition of “harm.” The change, proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, would undo more than 40 years of critical protections for endangered wildlife. 

The longstanding definition of “harm” includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in injury or death to protected species. Removing this language would severely undermine the ESA’s ability to prevent species decline, despite overwhelming scientific consensus that habitat loss is the primary driver of extinction.  

ASLA thanks the Biodiversity Subcommittee of the ASLA Climate & Biodiversity Action Committee, particularly Keith Bowers, FASLA, Lisa Casey, ASLA, and David Cutter, FASLA for applying their expertise to draft the comments. They highlighted how “landscape architects play a critical role in protecting and restoring land, wetlands, coastal zones, and marine habitats that support biodiversity. Because of our unique education and training, landscape architects understand that species' survival depends on intact ecosystems, not just absence of direct injury.” 

ASLA’s comments also note that “weakening the ESA would increase project delays, regulatory uncertainty, and environmental degradation. It would also jeopardize long-term efforts to ensure healthy, resilient landscapes that support both human and ecological communities.” 

ASLA strongly urges the federal government to retain the current definition of “harm” under the ESA. Biodiversity protection is essential to public health, environmental resilience, and the long-term well-being of our communities. Read ASLA’s comments.