Threats to the Endangered Species Act
- 20 minutes ago
- 5 min read
By Amy Porter, Director of Conservation
The developments surrounding H.R. 845 are part of a broader and escalating effort to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA) set forth in 1973. The ESA remains one of the most consequential environmental laws in the world, grounded in science, stewardship, and a shared responsibility to protect species at risk of extinction. Proposed regulatory changes under the Trump administration would significantly undermine this foundation by rolling back habitat protections and narrowing the scope of safeguards available to imperiled wildlife.
Threatened Species Protections at Risk
Wolf Haven is opposed to proposed changes that would eliminate long-standing automatic protections for species listed as threatened. Federal wildlife agencies have advanced a proposal to rescind the “blanket 4(d) rule,” which currently extends most endangered species protections to threatened species.
Although existing threatened species would not be immediately affected, newly listed or reclassified species would instead rely on individualized, species-specific regulations developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although tailored rules can, in theory, better reflect a species’ unique conservation needs, this approach raises concerns. Developing and implementing species-specific protections requires considerable time, expertise, and resources... in a moment when agencies are facing increasing workloads alongside declining capacity and funding. As a result, newly listed threatened species could face significant delays in receiving adequate protections, leaving them vulnerable during critical recovery periods.
Weakening Habitat Protections in a Changing Climate
Wolf Haven opposes all efforts to narrow habitat protections, particularly for unoccupied areas that are essential for species recovery and long-term resilience in the face of climate change. Proposed regulatory changes would reinstate a restrictive two-step process for designating unoccupied critical habitat for threatened or endangered species. Under this framework, USFWS would first be required to determine whether or not occupied habitat alone is sufficient for conservation. Only if it is deemed inadequate could unoccupied areas be considered - and then, only if those areas contain features explicitly deemed essential to the species’ survival.
Compared to prior rules that allowed occupied and unoccupied habitats to be evaluated together, this approach significantly limits when unoccupied areas can receive protection, despite their growing importance as species shift ranges in response to climate change.
Interagency Consultation & Federal Project Review
Wolf Haven is opposed to proposed changes that would revise the ESA’s Section 7 interagency consultation process, which requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA) before authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions that could jeopardize listed species or their critical habitat. These revisions would update definitions and procedural requirements that shape how agencies assess, and avoid harm, to protected species.
Although proponents argue the changes would streamline consultations and align regulations with statutory language and past legal interpretations, Wolf Haven is concerned the revisions would weaken the rigor of the consultation process and allow federal actions, with harmful consequences for species or habitat, to proceed with reduced scrutiny.
Economic Considerations & Critical Habitat Exclusions
Wolf Haven is opposed to proposed changes that would introduce broader economic considerations into ESA decision-making. Currently, decisions about whether to list a species as threatened or endangered must be based solely on the best available biological science (population status, threats, etc.) while economic factors are not allowed to influence core listing decisions. The proposed changes would permit economic factors - such as impacts on development, employment, land use, and industry costs - to influence both listing decisions and critical habitat designations.
Wolf Haven is deeply committed to the health of both wildlife and the communities that share their landscapes, as reflected in our 13 consecutive years of service on Washington’s Wolf Advisory Group and our leadership in the Wolf Wise Communities program. While we recognize the importance of economic considerations in planning and decision-making, we are concerned that weighing these factors too heavily during critical stages of wildlife recovery could leave vulnerable species without adequate protection or exclude essential habitat outcomes that would ultimately undermine both ecological and community resilience.
Similarly, a related proposal outlines how economic and national security impacts would be weighed when determining whether or not to exclude areas from critical habitat designation. Under Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, areas could be excluded if the costs "outweigh" conservation benefits, so long as the exclusion does not result in extinction. Wolf Haven believes conservation decisions must consider more than just the risk of extinction. They should also account for habitat connectivity and the long-term health of ecosystems.
Redefining Harm & the “Unleashing Energy" Development
All of these regulatory changes are occurring alongside a broader policy push to accelerate energy and mineral development. An executive order directing agencies to “unleash American energy” instructs federal departments to review and revise regulations perceived as slowing down domestic energy production, with limited consideration of wildlife or climate impacts.
Under existing law, development projects must assess whether their actions may affect threatened or endangered species, including through the ESA’s definitions of “take” and “harm,” which recognize that significant damage can occur even without intent. Proposed changes would narrow these definitions by equating "harm" solely with intentional acts, limiting accountability to actions explicitly aimed at killing animals. This shift would allow activities that can destroy essential habitat - such as logging or pipelines that disrupt breeding areas - to proceed, despite their consequences for species recovery and survival.
Protecting the ESA
Wolf Haven firmly believes that successful species recovery requires foresight - ensuring wildlife have the space, habitat, and resilience needed to adapt and thrive into the future. Efforts to weaken the ESA threaten not only wolves, but countless other species, including iconic Pacific Northwest regional wildlife such as marbled murrelets, spotted owls, grizzly bears, Canada lynx, wolverines, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies, Oregon spotted frogs, and Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits, all of which depend on the ESA for essential protections.
At a time when wildlife face unprecedented pressures from development, habitat loss, and climate change, this is not the moment to undermine our nation’s most effective conservation law.
For a deeper dive on this topic, check out the following resources:
