ACTION ALERT: Speak Up for Salmon in the Northwest’s Next Power Plan

September 8, 2026

MAIN TAKEAWAYS

NW Steelheaders has joined a federal lawsuit challenging the current Administration’s decision to eliminate the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The definition of “harm” in the ESA has historically included habitat destruction and degradation when those activities kill or injure threatened or endangered wildlife.
The federal agencies have rescinded the definition of harm entirely, improperly focusing the law only on "taking" or direct harm to wildlife.
The rule is scheduled to take effect September 14, 2026, making the coming days particularly important for the legal challenge and for anglers and conservationists concerned about the consequences for habitat protection.

NW STEELHEADERS JOIN LAWSUIT TO DEFEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

We cannot protect salmon and steelhead if the law stops recognizing destruction of their habitat as harm.

Clean, cold water. Healthy spawning gravel. Intact streambanks. Functioning floodplains. Safe migration corridors. These are not optional pieces of the salmon life cycle—they are the foundation that makes healthy and abundant fish populations possible.

That is why the Association of Northwest Steelheaders has joined a coalition of conservation organizations challenging the complete removal of habitat protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), we are joining the National Wildlife Federation and other state and regional conservation organizations in federal court to challenge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service decision to rescind the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA.

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service proposed rescinding the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm,” which had been in place for decades and included significant habitat modification or degradation when it actually killed or injured protected wildlife. The proposal drew more than 350,000 public comments, including opposition from states, scientists, conservation organizations, and others. On July 14, 2026, the agencies issued the final rule formally rescinding the definition and adopting a much narrower interpretation of “take” and “harm.”

WHAT CHANGED?

According to the Administration, the decision to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” is based primarily on legal interpretation and reducing what it views as unnecessary regulatory burdens.

The administration's argument is the old definition was an overly broad agency interpretation of “take,” inconsistent with what the administration considers the best reading of the statutory text, and burdensome for people conducting otherwise lawful activities.

The Steelheaders fundamentally disagree. We see habitat protection as an essential mechanism for preventing construction and development activities from causing the death or injury of salmon, steelhead, and other wildlife.

For more than 50 years, federal wildlife agencies have recognized that harming an endangered or threatened species can include significant habitat modification or degradation when it actually kills or injures wildlife.

The Fish and Wildlife Service established its original definition of harm shortly after Congress enacted the ESA in 1973. The definition was clarified in 1981 and remained in place for decades. The National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) adopted a substantially similar definition for protected fish and wildlife in 1999.

And in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of habitat modification within the definition of harm in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. The Court recognized that the ESA's purpose includes conserving the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend.

On July 14, 2026, however, the US Fish and Wildlife agency(USFW) finalized a rule rescinding those regulatory definitions, not just modifying the definition of harm but removing it entirely.

The agencies have indicated that they intend to interpret the ESA much more narrowly—essentially limiting it to affirmative acts directed immediately and intentionally at an individual animal.

For migratory fish species, that distinction could be profound.

YOU CAN'T SAVE SALMON WITHOUT SALMON HABITAT

Imagine a spawning stream being degraded by an activity that eliminates spawning gravel, damages rearing habitat, or disrupts the conditions fish need to survive.

The fish don't have to be struck, shot, or intentionally killed for the damage to be real. If the destruction of their habitat kills or injures the fish, the fish have been harmed by that action.

Our lawsuit argues that eliminating the longstanding definition undermines the ESA's central purpose and conflicts with the Supreme Court's Sweet Home decision. The complaint also argues that the agencies failed to adequately explain their reversal of a regulatory framework that had been in place for more than five decades.

We also find the agencies failed to conduct the environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act to make this rule change.

WHY NORTHWEST ANGLERS SHOULD CARE

The consequences of weakening habitat protections could be especially serious in the Pacific Northwest.

Salmon and steelhead are already facing extraordinary pressures from declining habitat quality, altered river conditions, water temperatures, dams, and other human impacts. For anglers, this isn't an abstract legal debate. Every lost spawning area, degraded tributary and damaged rearing habitat can mean fewer fish returning to our rivers.

And once habitat is destroyed, rebuilding it can take decades—or may not be possible at all.

The Oregon Coast coho recovery experience provides an important example. After the species was listed as threatened in 1998, decades of coordinated habitat restoration, improved management and partnerships have helped improve abundance and resilience. A 2025 Oregon legislative presentation described habitat as “key to delisting” and emphasized the importance of restoring, protecting, and reconnecting habitat.

WE SHOULD BE BUILDING ON THAT PROGRESS—NOT WEAKENING THE PROTECTIONS THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE

For an organization like the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, this is an attack we cannot ignore.

The Endangered Species Act does more than prohibit the intentional killing of protected wildlife. Its broader framework recognizes that species cannot survive without the ecosystems they depend upon.

The lawsuit points out that habitat protections are intertwined with other important parts of the ESA, including Section 7 consultations, Section 10 incidental take permits, and Habitat Conservation Plans. Weakening the definition of harm could undermine these established conservation mechanisms and make it harder to account for habitat-related impacts.

Our mission is to protect salmon and steelhead populations and the habitat they depend on for future generations. We represent anglers who want to fish for healthy, abundant salmon and steelhead—and who understand that protecting fish means protecting the rivers, streams and watersheds that sustain them.

We are standing up for salmon—and the law that protects them.

The Association of Northwest Steelheaders is proud to stand alongside the Southern Environmental Law Center, National Wildlife Federation, and our conservation partners in this effort including Conservation Council for Hawai’i, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, North Carolina Wildlife Federation, and Florida Wildlife Federation.

We will continue to fight for the salmon, steelhead, clean water, and healthy habitat that make Northwest fishing possible.

READ THE COMPLAINT

James Adkins

ACTION ALERT:Speak Up for Salmon in the Northwest's Next Power Plan