Make a Donation
logo

The proposed rules to make significant changes to the 1973 Endangered Species Act-Comments due December 22, 2025!

On April 17, 2025 Proposal (Docket FWS‑HQ‑ES‑2025-0034)

Summary: What’s New, and What’s Worse, in the Current Proposal vs. April 2025

  • The April 2025 proposal was a single-issue rule: rescind “harm” definition.
  • The November 2025 ((docket FWS‑HQ‑ES‑2025‑0039)) proposal is a multi-issue overhaul: rescind “harm,” rewrite how critical habitat and listings are defined, eliminate blanket 4(d) protections, and restructure how ESA protections apply across the board.
  • In aggregate, the newer proposal represents a much more sweeping weakening of ESA protections, increasing the threat to habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience.

What the proposed rule does (in summary) (docket FWS‑HQ‑ES‑2025‑0039) www.regulations.gov.

  • The proposal would rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would remove the long-standing interpretation that “harm” includes significant habitat modification or degradation. National Agricultural Law Center+2Best Best & Krieger+2
  • Under current ESA regulations (since 1975), “take” of a protected species includes not only direct killing or injuring, but also indirect harm: for

    Spotted owl catching prey. Photo by Kasey Hovik

    example, destroying or degrading habitat that impairs essential behavior (feeding, sheltering, breeding). National Agricultural Law Center+2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service+2

  • The proposed rule would narrow “take” to only direct actions against animals (wounding, killing, capturing, etc.). Indirect actions such as habitat destruction or degradation would no longer automatically count as “take.” Holland & Knight+2Davis Graham+2
  • Importantly: the proposal does not define a new “harm” / “take” definition. Rather, it removes the existing regulatory definition. Davis Graham+1

Also, in parallel, the same 2025 rule-making package (dockets including 2025-0039 and related) would revise the rules governing listing/delisting decisions, critical habitat designation, interagency consultation under ESA Section 7, and protections for “threatened” species under Section 4(d). JD Supra+2Holland & Knight+2

In practice, that means:

  • Limiting the scope of what counts as impermissible “take” under ESA when habitat is altered but no direct kill/injury occurs.
  • Making it harder to designate unoccupied but potentially key habitat as “critical habitat,” which helps species recovery and expansion. American Bird Conservancy+2Federal Register+2
  • Removing what’s called the “blanket 4(d) rule” which currently, many “threatened” species automatically receive ESA protections similar to “endangered” species; under the proposed rule, protections for threatened species would instead have to be spelled out on a species-by-species basis via a special 4(d) rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service+2National Association of Home Builders+2
  • Narrowing or altering the requirements for federal agencies to consult with FWS/NMFS under Section 7 when their actions might impact listed species or their habitat (for example, infrastructure, forestry, water management, development). National Law Review+2National Law Review+2

In short: the rule effectively reduces the regulatory reach of the ESA — especially when it comes to protecting habitat rather than just individual animals.

Potential Impacts on Wildlife

  • Increased habitat loss or degradation without ESA oversight: If habitat alteration is no longer considered “take” under ESA, many actions such as logging, road-building, land development, water diversions, etc., could proceed without the need for an ESA permit or mitigation, even in areas that are important for threatened or endangered species. That could accelerate habitat destruction — often the leading cause of species decline.
  • Reduced ability to designate or protect “critical habitat”, especially unoccupied or future-essential habitats which would basically limit options for species recovery, range expansion, or adaptation to climate change. American Bird Conservancy+2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service+2
  • Greater risk of extinction or population decline: Many species, especially those with small populations, fragmented ranges, or specific habitat needs, rely on habitat preservation. Without habitat protections, recovery prospects shrink and risk increases. Conservation groups predict this could push some species “on the brink” closer to extinction. ABC News+2Humane World for Animals+2
  • Less predictability and fewer safeguards for future habitat impacts, especially from large-scale infrastructure, water projects, or resource extraction. Over time, cumulative damage to ecosystems could degrade entire watersheds, forest systems, rivers, and wetlands which in turn affects biodiversity broadly, not only ESA-listed species.

Implications for Umpqua Watersheds

Given our organization’s mission of protecting wildlife and late-successional forest habitats in Oregon, this proposed rule presents serious challenges:

  • Habitat protections would become weaker, undermining one of ESA’s strongest conservation tools. For species like Northern Spotted Owl or Marbled Murrelet,  which rely heavily on intact late-successional forest and old-growth habitat,  the loss of regulatory protection for habitat degradation would make it much harder to prevent destructive logging, road-building, or other forest management activities.
  • Critical habitat designation for rare or at-risk species could be blocked or delayed, especially for unoccupied areas that otherwise may serve as recovery habitat, limiting resilience under climate change or future land-use pressures.
  • More burden on local conservation groups and citizens: Without federal habitat-based ESA protections, the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Umpqua Watersheds, in monitoring, advocacy, legal challenges, public comments, and cooperation becomes more crucial. Logging, road projects, or water diversions will likely be permitted without ESA oversight, requiring Umpqua Watersheds to ramp up scrutiny, community organizing, public comments, outreach, and perhaps legal intervention.
  • Harder to prevent cumulative habitat loss in watersheds: As a watershed-focused NGO, you rely on protecting habitat connectivity, water quality, stream forests, old-growth corridors, etc. The rule could make it easier for fragmented or incremental destruction across a watershed, even if no single project “kills” a listed species, which cumulatively can degrade ecosystem health and resilience.
  • Greater uncertainty and risk for long-term species recovery: For species already struggling (sensitive fish, amphibians, birds, or forest-dependent species) the weakened ESA framework could lower the bar for development or harvest, making recovery plans harder to implement or maintain.

What this Means for Broader Conservation & Why It Matters

  • Habitat loss is widely recognized as the main driver of species decline and extinction worldwide. By undermining habitat-based protections, the proposed rule would severely weaken one of the most effective tools under U.S. law for conserving biodiversity.
  • It shifts the balance away from “ecosystem-level” conservation (habitat, watersheds, connectivity, ecosystem services) toward a narrow “individual-animal” focus. An approach which misses the point that many species need healthy habitat before population-level harm shows up.
  • For areas such as the Pacific Northwest, with high biodiversity, complex ecosystems, old-growth forests, salmon streams, and climate-sensitive habitats, losing habitat protections under ESA may accelerate ecological degradation, decline of key species, and loss of ecosystem resilience.

 What it means for Native American Tribes

1. Threat to Treaty-Protected Lands, Hunting & Cultural Resources

2. Reduced Protection for Habitat That Supports Culturally-Important Species

3. Increased Risk to Water, Watersheds, and Fish Runs. Core to Tribal Rights and Livelihoods

4. Loss of Tribal Voice and Influence in Conservation Decisions
.
5. Threat to Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Long-Term Cultural Continuity

What you can do:

Visit the federal register comment page: Docket FWS‑HQ‑ES‑2025‑0039

Make your voice heard. Submit your comments before December 22, 2025.

What We Are Asking: Keep Habitat Protections Intact

We call on FWS and NMFS to reject the 2025 proposal to rescind habitat-based “harm” under ESA. Instead, they should:

  • Retain the existing regulatory definition of “harm,” including habitat modification and degradation.

  • Recognize that protecting habitat is not optional but central to conserving species and ecosystems.

  • Support ecosystem-level conservation, critical habitat protection, and recovery strategies that reflect the science and the values of communities dependent on healthy forests, watersheds, and wildlife.

How You Can Help and What You Can Do Right Now

  • Write or submit a comment (as an individual, organization, or concerned citizen) expressing opposition to the proposed rule.

  • Share these facts via social media, community bulletin boards, newsletters, public meetings, your radio show, or among friends and neighbors.

  • Help identify and document important local habitat such as old-growth stands, riparian buffers, wetlands, and streams that would be at risk under the rule.

  • Encourage cooperation with other conservation groups, tribes, and concerned citizens to build a broad base of support for habitat protection.

Use this Fact Sheet for spreading the word.

 

Top Western Oregon Species & Habitats Most Impacted by the Proposal

  1. Northern Spotted Owl

Why at risk:

  • The species’ primary threat is habitat loss, not direct killing.
  • Removing “harm = habitat modification” effectively removes ESA oversight for old-growth logging, thinning in nesting stands, road construction, and canopy reduction.
  • BLM and USFS could approve projects without ESA take permits unless they can prove a direct injury, an almost impossible given indirect declines.
  1. Marbled Murrelet

Why at risk:

  • Dependent on old-growth platforms far inland.
  • ESA protections rely heavily on the habitat-as-harm interpretation.
  • Without it, logging of occupied and “likely to be occupied” habitat becomes far easier.
  1. Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

Why at risk:

  • Threats include degraded streamside habitat, sedimentation, elevated temperatures, and altered hydrology: all indirect harms.
  • Without habitat-based ESA harm, many timber projects near streams avoid ESA trouble altogether.
  1. Bull Trout

Why at risk:

  • Extremely sensitive to cold-water habitat changes.
  • Habitat connectivity is the bottleneck for recovery; few direct injuries occur.
  1. Western Snowy Plover

Why at risk:

  • Dependent on specific dune and beach habitat structure.
  • Human recreation, invasive vegetation, and development are all habitat-driven threats.
  1. Pacific Lamprey

Why at risk:

  • Habitat fragmentation and sediment changes harm them long before they are physically injured.
  • ESA protection for lamprey relies almost entirely on habitat protections.
  1. Red Tree Vole (North Oregon Coast DPS)

Why at risk:

  • One of the most habitat-specific mammals in Oregon.
  • Logging and canopy fragmentation are the primary threats.

 

View the testimony from Lewis and Clark College, Professor Daniel Rohlf from February 2025

1970 publication of the USFWS Resource Publication 69