Saturday, July 11, 2026

Rolling back the ESA's regulatory definition of the word "harm"

See:

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-administration-kills-protections-for-endangered-wildlife-habitat-2026-07-10/

Comments:

The word "harm" was not specifically defined in the Endangered Species Act but was used in defining the word "take" to mean "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect."

It became settled law that the word "harm" in the context of the Endangered Species Act regulations (again with reference to the "take" provisions) included habitat modification and destruction. Federal regulations have (until now) defined "harm" to include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife."

But no doubt as a result of Trump administration goals to open up areas for logging and mining, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has now, some 30 years later, decided to follow a minority dissenting opinion made in 1995 by conservative Justice Scalia (who was joined by Thomas and one other), that the word "harm" does not in fact mean negatively impacting listed species habitats.

The Service claims that this change is unrelated to critical habitat provisions afforded under the Act and that existing critical habitat designations will not change (yet many listed species do not have critical habitat designations and the protection those provide do not in any event exclude development and degradation of those habitats.).

Some 358,000 comments were submitted in response to a 30 day only comment period that was deemed to be a sufficient amount of time for the public to be notified and make those responses.

Now the word "harm" has no specific regulatory meaning. Rescinding the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act that has just been published involves some highly contorted logic. And, exactly what this means when it comes to plants is not yet clear.

EarthJustice is reportedly planning to fight this change in court since there is no legal or scientific basis to support the position that the Service has now taken. Given now the even more "conservative" nature of the Supreme Court, chances of success are probably low.

Congressional action ultimately may be required.

Sunday, May 10, 2026

Climate change: don't forget about the plants

May 7, 2026 AP news story:

https://apnews.com/article/plants-extinction-climate-change-unusual-habitat-risk-b059130319e66938073c681a705d6391

For those who need yet more proof that climate change is real:

https://apnews.com/article/arctic-sea-ice-record-shattering-warming-86a91afa7be96d8821c7bbfed9e5a623

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Big Macs versus environmental stewardship

Cows vs. buffaloes?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/04/us/politics/trump-buffalos-montana.html

The outcome is not hard to predict.

Monday, May 4, 2026

Trump EPA gaslighting on air pollution

While the Trump administration advocates for fossil fuels, they want to blame Asia now for Salt Lake City's (and Phoenix's) air pollution problems (and so want to cut those cities some slack in terms of regulatory impacts):

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/climate/phoenix-salt-lake-city-pollution-epa.html

This is of course insanity and propaganda by the current administration (which does not believe in science nor facts).

The causes of pollution along the Wasatch Front (where Salt Lake City is situated) are well known.

Just a few resources to respond to this ridiculous EPA claim:

https://cwc.utah.gov/smog-lake-city-the-history-of-utahs-poor-air-quality/

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/11/14/reaching-air-how-historic-mistake/

https://www.slc.gov/sustainability/air-quality/

Friday, April 10, 2026

Pikas, Mountain Goats, and Global Warming

The American Pika may represent the "canary in a coal mine" for climate change impacts, and their plight should not be ignored. See this recent story:

https://www.kuer.org/science-environment/2026-04-08/these-fuzzy-alpine-animals-are-feeling-the-heat-of-utahs-hot-dry-winter

As also indicated in this article:

"Other research has begun studying the effects of mountain goat grazing on pika habitat, too. Goats aren’t native to the La Sals, but the state introduced them there starting in 2013. Some environmental groups have argued that adding mountain goats threatens the fragile alpine ecosystem."

The Utah Native Plant Society has been one of those "environmental" groups opposed to these non-native mountain goat introductions. But the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources remains committed to introducing them where they don't belong throughout the state.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as well as the state of California have failed to conclude that any of the subspecies of the America Pika are eligible for listing under federal and state laws. The original American Pika ESA (Endangered Species Act) petition was filed over 15 years ago.

The conclusion reached in 2010 by the USFWS (see link below) that these animals were not likely in danger of extinction or likely to be become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of a significant portion of the range was in my opinion flawed. There is always a lack of data but at some point you have to act in the best interest of the species and not just push decisions down the road when we know that worldwide temperatures are increasing every year and faster than expected and that the human influence on global warming is only getting worse year after year. And until human populations stabilize and given now also extreme anti-environmental policies, species decline and likelihood of extinctions should be obvious.

Here is the USFWS 2010 decision concluding that none of the subspecies were eligible for listing:

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/federal_register_document/2010-2405.pdf

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/American_pika/action_timeline.html

However, very recent research is again indicating that they are in fact at potentially severe and imminent risk:

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2025/11/18/new-pika-research-finds-troubling-signs-iconic-rocky-mountain-animal

Ochotona princeps subsp. uinta which is only known to occur in Utah (Wasatch Range and Uinta Mtns - has still not being ranked to Utah) and Wyoming (S1 NatureServe rank)

https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.898829/Ochotona_princeps_uinta

Subsp. uinta as well as subsp. schisticeps should have been listed in 2010.

The current T4 rank makes little sense with respect to subsp. schisticeps, also with no NatureServe rank for Utah:

https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.895817/Ochotona_princeps_sch

See comments below regarding subsp. saxatillis which should also be receiving conservation attention; these subspecies need priority attention or they may be lost.

Pictures and more information

Ochotona princeps subsp. princeps (Wasatch range) Sept. 2014
(photo by Tony Frates)

The five subspecies of the American Pika:

Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 91, Issue 2, 16 April 2010, Pages 401–417,
https://doi.org/10.1644/09-MAMM-A-277.1

Four of the five subspecies occur in Utah:

Subsp. princeps - occurs in the Wasatch Range and overall occupies the northern portion of the range of the species. Has a brighter, more rusty-brown or cinnamon color in summer.

Subsp. schisticeps - occurs in Great Basin. Has grayish markings in its summer fur and less cinnamon tones. Adapted to drier habitats.

Subsp uinta - occurs in the Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Range. Intermediate in size and color as compared to the coastal (dark) and southern Rocky Mountain (light) subspecies.

Subsp saxatilis - only occurs in Utah in the La Sal Mountains where it is disjunct from where it occurs in Colorado and New Mexico. Generally larger than the other subspecies and lighter in color (more grayish and light brown). This subspecies should have a high priority conservation status in Utah given its sparse distribution and the impacts of global warming and introduced mountain goats. While this subspecies has been considered as secure in Colorado, recent research as noted previously suggests that it may in be fact in decline. More information:

https://nwt.lternet.edu/featured-publications/2025/11/03/long-term-data-suggest-a-severe-decline-in-recruitment-of-the-american-pika-on-niwot-ridge-boulder-county-colorado

While NatureServe currently ranks the species as a whole as S4 for Utah, all of the subspecies are SNR (not ranked) which doesn't make much sense.

Why isn't the Utah DWR giving these subspecies more attention? They should all have state NatureServe ranks.

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Utah roadless areas need protection

In light of the attacks on the environment coming out of Washington DC, here is an older article that discusses the importance of roadless areas in support of biodiversity, specifically referring to Utah:

https://www.hcn.org/articles/utah-biodiversity-thrives-in-utahs-roadless-areas-rollback-threatens-at-risk/

The article in turn references this report which concluded that roadless protections are crucial to sustaining the health and diversity of more than 100 at-risk species. Yet the state of Utah was at that time fighting to reduce the restrictions into those protected areas.

Potential impacts to the Ashley National Forest in Utah are of particular concern in this latest misguided effort to increase logging in our forests.

Old and older growth forests have largely already been decimated in the U.S. and need protection, not roads and logging. This will not "fix our forests." It is estimated that only a very few remnant old-growth forests remaining the United States (less than 1% in the East and 5% in the West (see Why old-growth forests?).

The current administration shuns science and in fact seems to instead revile it. You can't use "common sense" (even if that normally even applies to you which it doesn't to our current administration) to figure these things out and take appropriate management action. Not understanding climate change (which is real) and instead referring to it as a "hoax" is code for avoiding the truth. And the truth can be inconvenient, but it is still the truth.

Saturday, May 24, 2025

NPS's I&M division on the DOGE chopping block

The National Park Service's (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring Division (I&M) is headed for a DOGE reduction or elimination in its entirety.

The I&M division provides scientific data that is critical for park management. It helps to ensure that the parks remain healthy and are meeting their conservation objectives.

This May 2025 article concerning the federally listed Navajo Sedge (Carex specuicola):

https://www.nps.gov/articles/protecting-navajo-sedge-in-natural-bridges.htm

was authored by an I&M research scientist and the related work was done by experienced I&M staffers along with Natural Bridges National Monument staff.

More about the I&M division:

https://www.nps.gov/im/index.htm

DOGE has been illegally in control of the NPS since April of 2025.