Bay Area scientists and conservation advocates blasted a Trump administration proposal to remove federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) habitat protections for listed species by significantly narrowing what it means to “harm” them under the law. The administration argues that the ESA limits industrial development and energy extraction that promotes economic growth.
The proposal would “eviscerate” the landmark legislation, says Jeff Miller, senior conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, a national nonprofit conservation organization that aims to protect endangered species. It will, he says, “interfere with the recovery of almost every imperiled wildlife species in the Bay Area.” The 1973 law serves as the “strongest layer of protections for endangered species,” Miller says. Across the Bay Area, 97 species are federally protected under the ESA, from blue whales to tiger lilies, according to the Conservation Lands Network. The ESA is estimated to have saved 291 species from extinction since its passage; according to the Center for Biological Diversity, no listed species have gone extinct in the Bay Area.
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is arguing that existing federal regulation “is inconsistent with the structure of the ESA.” The act, which was signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon, protects listed species from “take,” a term the Act has historically defined to include “harm” by “significant habitat modification or degradation” to places where listed species breed, feed, or shelter. The proposed change rescinds this definition of harm, so the ESA therefore would only protect species from actions that directly kill or hurt wildlife—like hunting or collecting.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The main reason that many species are endangered or threatened today is because people have changed the homes or habitats upon which these species depend.”
Local scientists say this proposal ignores the biggest threats to Bay Area wildlife today. “Harm the habitat, harm the species,” says Tom Robinson, director of the Conservation Lands Network. Habitat destruction has driven many endangered Bay Area species to the brink. California tiger salamanders depend on fragile vernal pools easily erased by development. Endangered flowers can’t grow outside narrow micro-climates threatened by climate change. Coho salmon and steelhead trout populations shrink without clear, fast-flowing streams to breed and grow in. “If they can’t live in a habitat that provides exactly what they need … these species don’t have a chance at survival into the future,” says Sarah Gordon, a conservation biologist who protects listed plants and animals with the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation.
The changes could make it easier to develop federal lands for projects that impact habitat even if the construction process itself doesn’t kill wildlife. “Imagine the results if there are no restrictions on damaging salmon streams, bulldozing habitats needed by red-legged frogs and tiger salamanders, or filling wetlands that are homes for salt marsh harvest mice and Ridgway’s rails,” Miller says.
What this means for Bay Area conservation is still “unclear to me,” says Robinson. The California Endangered Species Act also provides legal protections for many of the same species listed under the ESA. “The two policies complement each other,” he says. As other federal regulations have also been scaled back, Robinson says this change may “place a greater burden” on state agencies to enforce compliance. (A spokesperson for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife told Bay Nature the department does not comment on policy changes or policy decisions.)
Multiple environmental groups have vowed to fight the proposed change in court. The public can comment on the proposed rule change until May 17, 2025, on regulations.gov. In the meantime, conservationists are reeling. This is in “direct conflict with the aims and objectives of species protection and conservation,” Gordon says.
