David Bernhardt

Wilbur Ross

• 
• 

Changes made to rules surrounding the Endangered Species Act have conservatives and industry leaders lining up with congratulations for the Trump administration, while critics are calling them nothing more than a gift to big business.

Finalized on Monday, changes will allow economic impact to be among the considerations weighed when deciding whether to list a species as endangered. The department also intends to cut protections for new species classified as threatened, shrink critical habitat and make it more difficult for climate change to be considered when looking to protect future threatened species. 

The changes — from the Department of Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service — apply to the law’s sections 4 and 7. Section 4 of the ESA deals with adding species to or removing species from the Act’s protections and designating critical habitat; section 7 covers consultations with other federal agencies.

“The revisions finalized with this rule-making fit squarely within the president’s mandate of easing the regulatory burden on the American public, without sacrificing our species’ protection and recovery goals,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.

The 1973 ESA says that adding or removing a species from lists of threatened or endangered species can only be based on the best available scientific and commercial information, and the Trump administration said those will remain the only criteria for listing determinations.

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said the changes increase the effectiveness and transparency of ESA. He added that, “an effectively administered act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation.”

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon welcomed the revised regulations, with his office saying they’ll “bring needed consistency to the state’s efforts to manage species.”

“Wyoming has always relied on science-based decision making, and we have taken a proactive approach to the management of sensitive species in an effort to avoid the need to list them,” Gordon said. “These updates to the ESA will further streamline processes and place an emphasis on local management.”

U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., also applauded the updates.

“The Trump administration is taking important steps to make the Endangered Species Act work better for people and wildlife,” Barrasso said, though he also indicated the changes didn’t go far enough.

“These final rules are a good start,” he said, “but the administration is limited by an existing law that needs to be updated. I am working in the Senate to strengthen the law, so it can meet its full conservation potential.”

Barrasso, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, acknowledged the need to “work across party lines to find common ground.”

“We must modernize the Endangered Species Act in a way that empowers states, promotes the recovery of species and allows local economies to thrive,” he said.

In the meantime, agricultural leaders approved of Monday’s rule changes.

Jennifer Houston, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said they’ll bring “long-awaited regulatory relief to American cattle farmers and ranchers,” while Family Farm Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen said the new approach “will better serve the environment and farming and ranching families in the West.”

Oil and gas developers chimed in with praise, too.

“For far too long, the [Endangered Species] Act has been weaponized to stop the production of food, fuel and fiber that Americans need every day while turning a blind eye to how red tape actually inhibits the recovery of species,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance.

Yet critics were quick to call the rule changes a disaster for threatened and endangered species. They promised lawsuits to stop what they see as the Trump administration efforts to gut the law.

“These changes crash a bulldozer through the Endangered Species Act’s lifesaving protections for America’s most vulnerable wildlife,” said Noah Greenwald, the Center for Biological Diversity’s endangered species director. “We’ll do everything in our power to get these dangerous regulations rescinded, including going to court.”

At least 10 state attorneys general have joined environmental groups in protesting the changes, which were first proposed in July 2018. The AGs, all from non-Western states, say the revised regulations put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction.

One of the most contentious points are changes made to the definition of the phrase “foreseeable future.” The ESA defines a threatened species as one that’s “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range,” the Denver-based law firm Holland and Hart explained last year. The new rules say that look forward “extends only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species’ responses to those threats are likely.”

Critics say the change will make it easy for the administration to dismiss concerns that species could suffer declining numbers due to climate change.

Gary Frazer, the assistant director for endangered species with Fish and Wildlife, said during a Monday teleconference that the phrase was revised for reasons of transparency. When further questioned about the change during a Q&A after the initial statements, Frazer called climate change science “speculative.”

The new rules — which Holland and Hart previously described as “the most sweeping changes to the ESA regulations” since 1986 — are set to go into effect in 30 days.