The Interior Department regulations that implement the statute, however, define the statutory term harm: The plaintiff was Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, which consisted of various landowners, logging companies, and timber workers in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast.

[4] It brought action against the Secretary of the Interior and the director of Fish and Wildlife Service to challenge the interpretation of the term take with regards to the clarification of harm in the Endangered Species Act.

The issue was if the interpretation of the word harm under section 9(a)(1) on takings of the Endangered Species Act includes habitat modification or destruction when it may kill or injure wildlife.

"[6][4] Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources[7] was also noted as using the Secretary's decision to amend the ESA without using the opportunity to change the definition of take.

The Supreme Court held, in a decision by Justice Stevens, that the definition of harm can include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.

Harm applies to significant habitat modification, which foreseeably causes the actual injury or death to the red-cockaded woodpecker and the northern spotted owl, protected by the Act.