Riverkeeper reflections |
 Recently proposed changes to the national Endangered Species Act could have devastating consequences to some of the most vulnerable species by weighing their value – and that of their habitat – against “economic impacts,” “national security” and other ambiguous and hard-to-scientifically quantify variables, according to various local environmental experts. The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced on Nov. 19, 2025, four specific rules that would alter how the Endangered Species Act is implemented in an effort “to strengthen American energy independence, improve regulatory predictability and ensure federal actions align with the best reading of the law” according to a press release from the federal agency. Public comment is encouraged on these proposed changes through Dec. 22, 2025, by going to each of the following four links:
“The proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act could have devastating consequences for listed species by weakening federal protections,” said Amber Wiewel, of Hawk Mountain Sanctuary and Pennsylvania’s Bird Atlas Coordinator. “These changes will create loopholes that industry groups would use to their advantage to prioritize development and other economic factors at the expense of some of our most vulnerable plants and animals.” One of the four proposed rule changes involves listing and critical habitat. Specifically:
Matthew Wilson, director of Susquehanna University’s Freshwater Research Institute and someone with extensive background in working on the Endangered Species Act in previous employment, admitted he has several major concerns with this point. “The first is the use of ‘commercial’ data. This – by definition – means someone with a commercial interest in the outcome of a ruling can weigh in on the decision, introducing inherent bias,” he said. “The second issue is the use of ‘consideration of economic impacts.’ This is perhaps the greatest concern in this entire document. The intentional vague wording here implies that if protection of a species would have any cost to a private party (business or individual) then that could be grounds to ignore protection of critical habitat.” Weighing the loss of species populations against loss of economic benefit makes no sense scientifically, according to Dr. Peter Petokas, a longtime local researcher and advocate for the Eastern hellbender. “Humans have made serious mistakes in the past, with the loss of many species due to environmental damage sustained to provide economic benefit. We cannot justify the taking of a species for the sake of economic gain. We should be on a path to a sustainable energy future and not promote further development of fossil fuel resources that have measurable impact to biodiversity,” he said. “How do we explain to future generations biodiversity losses for the sake of increasing oil production when we should be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? When or where resource extraction proffers major risks to rare or declining species populations, we must seek alternative sources even if the economic benefit is significantly less. We should not attempt to balance species' losses with economic gain; rather, the health of a species must be given much greater weight over potential economic benefit.” The last major concern with the first proposed Endangered Species Act rule change for Wilson is altering the definition of "foreseeable future" and use of the phrase "not prudent." “Prudence, and the interpretation of that word's definition, should never be a consideration in Endangered Species Act policy – especially for designation of critical habitat," he said. The second proposed rule change involves interagency cooperation:
Among this is the definition of the concept of the term “harm” when it relates to species of concern. “The greatest harm to many threatened and endangered species is loss of habitat. By redefining ‘harm’ to eliminate habitat damage or loss as a factor when determining species status ignores the importance of habitat to species success,” said Petokas. “For example, a significant factor in the decline of the Eastern Hellbender has been habitat loss due to timber harvesting, mineral mining, agricultural practices, and the construction of roads and railways. To remove the effects of habitat destruction from other factors influencing the decline of the eastern hellbender is to ignore the largest factor affecting the ability of extant populations from undergoing recovery from decline.” Another example, according to Wiewel, involves the Piping Plover, a small endangered shorebird in the eastern United States that breeds along sandy coastlines which are a range-restricted habitat that has already been heavily modified for development and recreation. “Because Piping Plovers are only on their breeding grounds for 3-4 months each year, it’s easy to envision increased development taking place in critical habitats during the remainder of the year when no direct harm to the birds would be demonstrated, despite the fact that even seemingly minor habitat disturbances can reduce their breeding success or render breeding sites unusable,” she said. The third proposed rule change to the Endangered Species Act involves the blanket rule option:
According to Petokas, the blanket protections for threatened species provide immediate protection for all threatened species without having to tailor protections to each species. “Tailoring species' protections is time consuming and would delay protection for species that are already clearly in decline or jeopardized by human-sourced direct and/or indirect impacts on species populations,” he said. “By slowing down the listing process, tailoring protections will likely push many threatened species into or closer to endangered status. “Holding back the sign-off on species already identified as meriting federal threatened or endangered status, such as the monarch butterfly and the eastern hellbender salamander, will further jeopardize their potential recovery.” The final proposed rule change for the Endangered Species Act involves more clarifications on critical habitat:
“The use of terms like ‘economic,’ ‘national security’ and ‘other relevant impacts’ are again problematic. In particular is the use of ‘other relevant impacts’ to create a blanket option for exclusions,” said Wilson. “The final sentence also is a terrible misread of the Endangered Species Act. The goal is not simply to prevent total extinction of a species, but to improve species prospects long-term and ultimately delist them from the act by improving population and patch sizes across a species' range.” Petokas admitted that designating critical habitat for a species can be challenging when a species has a large geographic distribution, but because so much habitat has been lost for many declining species, there is little quality habitat remaining. “For example, the eastern hellbender has suffered from major habitat losses, yet some high quality habitat remains. These areas could be identified as critical habitat whether currently occupied or not, thus reducing the likelihood of further habitat loss and population declines, and permitting the future expansion of the species to unoccupied, but healthy, habitat areas,” he said. “Protecting habitat will promote resiliency to additional losses due to significant flood events or pollution discharges.” Another species that epitomizes concerns with the overall proposed changes in the Endangered Species Act, according to Wiewel, is the American Goshawk, large raptor dependent on sizable tracts of healthy, mature forests, has been proposed for federal listing but is currently only state-listed in Pennsylvania. “The proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act could make it harder for species like American Goshawk to become federally listed by allowing economic factors to be considered in listing decisions and by limiting the possibility of using future threats such as climate change as rationale for listing. Further, the proposed changes would weaken protections for species that are only listed as threatened, minimizing the value of the act for the American Goshawk should it eventually receive a federally threatened designation,” she said. “Prioritizing economic factors and limiting critical habitat designations would likely open a path for increased logging and energy development in the mature forests that are so important for goshawks and other species that fall under the umbrella of their protection.” Again, public comment is encouraged on these proposed changes through Dec. 22, 2025, by going to each of the following four links:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsRiverkeeper John Zaktansky is an award-winning journalist and avid promoter of the outdoors who loves camping, kayaking, fishing and hunting with the family. Archives
January 2026
Topics |
RSS Feed
