Federal Agencies Rescind Regulatory Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act

On July 14, 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration finalized a rule that rescinds the long-standing regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since 1975, federal regulations have interpreted"harm" to include habitat modification or degradation that significantly disrupts essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding,feeding, or sheltering - even in the absence of direct contact with an animal.By removing this specific regulatory language, the agencies are narrowing the scope of what constitutes an illegal "take" under the ESA, shifting federal enforcement away from indirect, habitat-based claims and refocusing it on the statutory text that targets direct, affirmative acts against wildlife.

This rule represents a fundamental shift in ESA enforcement,moving toward a more constrained and predictable legal standard. By eliminating the regulatory interpretation that equated routine habitat management with the"taking" of a species, the federal government aims to dismantle a source of major frustration for private landowners. While statutory protections against direct injury or death to protected species remain in full effect, this rescission effectively ends the practice of using broad, indirect interpretations of "harm" to regulate land use. This change serves as a critical move to stop the expansion of federal oversight into areas that were never intended to be governed by the original statute.

For Nebraska agriculture, this change is a significant victory for certainty and common sense. It eases the burden on producers who have long shouldered the responsibility of being both the stewards of the land and the ones most impacted by unpredictable federal mandates. While core ESA protections against direct injury to species remain unchanged, this rule reduces the need for unnecessary incidental take permits and lowers the risk of federal intervention in day-to-day farm management. By prioritizing clear,statutory language over expansive administrative interpretations, this shift provides producers with the stability to plan for the future, knowing that their primary business assets-their land and water - are no longer subject to the same level of regulatory ambiguity.

‍