U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refines Harm Definition

The agency issued a memo on September 14, 2026, removing indirect and accidental impacts from endangered species protections.

Updated on Oct. 15, 2026 in Environmental

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refines Harm Definition

Live Poll

Should federal agencies prioritize habitat protection over reducing regulatory burdens for landowners and businesses?

On September 14, 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updated its regulatory definition of harm under the Endangered Species Act. The change excludes indirect or accidental harm from current protective measures.

Why it matters

The Department of the Interior stated that the policy change is intended to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses and families while restoring private property rights. Environmental groups have initiated a lawsuit challenging the shift in federal oversight.

The Endangered Species Act has historically maintained a 99% protection success rate for listed species since its enactment in the early 1970s. The new memo specifically narrows the scope of what constitutes prohibited harm to the organisms.

The players

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

This federal agency is responsible for the management and conservation of fish, wildlife, and natural habitats within the United States.

Department of the Interior

The federal executive department oversees the management and conservation of most federal land and natural resources.

The details

The director of the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the memo to adjust how the agency enforces species protection protocols. Attorneys representing environmental groups in Utah subsequently filed a legal challenge against the federal government to block the modification.

The Endangered Species Act was first enacted in the early 1970s.
The Fish and Wildlife Service issued the memo on Sept. 14, 2026.

The Big Picture

This policy adjustment marks a significant departure from the established enforcement framework of the Endangered Species Act. It narrows the scope of protections by removing indirect impacts from the definition of harm.

The change in regulatory definitions could impact how private property owners and businesses develop land near habitats of protected species. It may lead to fewer restrictions on activities that previously faced federal scrutiny due to potential indirect or accidental consequences.

The takeaway

Property owners should monitor the ongoing litigation to see if the new definition of harm remains in effect or is paused by the courts. Understanding these regulatory changes is essential for those involved in land management and development.