Efforts to recover wolverine numbers could be adversely impacted by Trump administration changes to the Endangered Species Act/NPS file

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's move Friday to publish changes to the Endangered Species Act drew criticism from a range of environmental and conservation groups concerned that threatened and endangered species would lose habitat under the change.

The proposal, to be published Tuesday in the Federal Register, would make another change in how federal agencies define what critical habitat is for an ESA-listed species.

Earlier this summer the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to redefine "critical habitat" for a species as only areas physically occupied by a threatened or endangered species. Outside of those areas, what constitutes critical habitat would be left to the Interior secretary to determine. The latest changes (attached below) would require federal agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service to take into account economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat before making such a designation.

"... proposed paragraph (b) sets out a mandatory requirement that FWS consider the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impacts prior to designating an area as part of a critical habitat designation. These economic impacts may include, for example, the economy of a particular area, productivity, and creation or elimination of jobs, opportunity costs potentially arising from critical habitat designation, and potential benefits from a potential designation such as outdoor recreation or ecosystem services.

Staff at the Natural Resources Defense Council said the changes, if made, would allow "developers, states, and local governments to prioritize oil and gas development and other industry over the value of restoring endangered species populations – at a time when our nation faces a biodiversity crisis."

“This regulation puts a thumb on the scale for developers and fossil fuel interests, making the critical habitat analysis less about survival of a species and more about profits," said Rebecca Riley, legal director of the Nature Program at NRDC. "The rule improperly shifts responsibility for economic analyses to industry as well as state and local governments, an abandonment of the agency’s responsibilities under the law. The nation’s endangered species are not simply ‘lost profits’ on a ledger, they are valued creatures in need of a home.”

“Another day, another effort by the Trump administration to strip protections for wildlife and habitats. This new proposal puts a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of developers and industry, making it even easier to exclude areas from designation as critical habitat. That will surely result in worse outcomes for species, when so many are already at risk of extinction,” added Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO, Defenders of Wildlife.  

Across the National Park System, the plan to revise how critical habitat for threatened and endangered species is determined and to lessen protections for species under the act stands to impact migratory species as well as those species that need ESA protections to prevent them from sliding to "endangered" from "threatened" status.

Species that rely on habitat in and around national parks that could be impacted range from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bears, which last year regained threatened status after a federal judge said the Fish and Wildlife Service erred in delisting the bears, to Kemp's ridley sea turtles, the smallest of sea turtles and which are considered critically endangered.

“This latest attack on the Endangered Species Act would essentially turn the keys to critical habitat protection for America’s threatened and endangered species over to industry and the whims of agency appointees," said Bart Melton, wildlife program director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "If finalized, this rule would undercut the intent of the Endangered Species Act, which for decades has supported the recovery of national park wildlife. The proposal twists and ignores the intent of the law, favoring short-term economic gains over America’s conservation future."

Criticism also was voiced by staff at the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Developers and polluters could basically veto any critical habitat protections for endangered species by claiming economic impacts, even without proof,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Wildlife simply can’t survive or recover if they have no place to live, but that’s exactly what will happen if the Trump administration succeeds in turning over the critical habitat designation process to industry.”