Examples of endangered and threatened species in Wisconsin depicting a whooping crane, eastern prairie fringed orchid, Karner blue butterfly, Canada lynx, northern long eared bat, Higgins eye mussel, slender glass lizard, Hine’s emerald, and piping plover. Photos via USFWS and Canva.

Speaking Up for Rare Species and their Habitats

On April 17, 2025, a new threat to wildlife and habitat protection came to our attention at Wisconsin’s Green Fire. A notice on the Federal Register was issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They had published an intent to conduct rulemaking “rescinding the definition of ‘harm’ in the Endangered Species Act.”

View the details about the proposed rule change on the Federal Register here.

Wisconsin is home to many federally listed endangered and threatened species, but this issue extends beyond our borders. This topic is especially important to us under our strategic priority for conservation of biodiversity. Find more information about the endangered and threatened species in Wisconsin here.

What is the Endangered Species Act?

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, is a landmark piece of environmental legislation to protect our “fish, wildlife, and plants.” The first purpose described in the ESA is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” Like any law, the ESA uses specific terms such as “take” and “harm” and “critical habitat” and the legal interpretation of these terms plays out over time. This proposed rule change addresses the definition of “harm.” Put simply, the change would narrow the meaning of harm, weakening the ESA’s protections for habitat conservation.

What is WGF doing about this proposed rule change?

When the notice came out on April 17, WGF immediately set to work unpacking the implications of this proposed rule change for Wisconsin and beyond. The deadline for public comment on USFWS’ & NOAA’s proposed rule change is May 19, 2025.

After careful review, our team of subject-matter experts determined that WGF should oppose this rule change. We prepared a detailed comment letter to submit to the federal register. We are providing a copy of this letter below. We also made this letter available to partner organizations and individuals and invited them to join as co-signatories.

• You can use our letter as inspiration to submit your own comments by the May 19, 2025 deadline.
• Contact us with your questions, or to share feedback.

Read WGF’s Comment Letter Below

Docket FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034

Maureen Foster,
Chief of Staff, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior.

Laura Grimm,
Chief of Staff, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, Department of Commerce.

We are writing in opposition to the proposed rule change to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) under Docket FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034. The proposed rule change, reinterpreting the definition of “harm,” will result in the status of listed species deteriorating and will impede species recovery that depends on protection and management of habitat. Limiting the definition of “harm” discounts the crucial importance of habitat to species’ survival, biological diversity, ecosystem health, and human quality of life.

Habitat protection has always been a central aspect of the ESA based on scientific documentation that human-caused habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction and extirpation. The proposed rule change contradicts the stated purposes of the Act: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.”

The proposed rule changes will unnecessarily weaken the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species often face threats from habitat loss. Habitat includes physical and biological requirements needed to sustain a population, including food, shelter, and other factors necessary for survival and reproduction. To recover a T&E species, habitat must be carefully managed to allow sustainable population growth. Limiting ESA protections to direct harm, such as killing a listed species, without conserving and restoring habitats will prevent reaching recovery goals and increase extinction risk.

A critical viewpoint suggests that the intention behind the rule change is to prioritize short-term economic benefits over the long-term welfare of endangered species and health of the ecosystems on which they depend. Habitat protection and management can lead to development restrictions or modifications; however intact ecosystems have significant economic values including ecosystem services (such as flood control, air and water purification and nutrient storage). The direct value of preserving biodiversity should also be acknowledged and protected.   

The proposed rule change prioritizes novel legal interpretations over well-established methods used by experts to successfully recover endangered species through habitat protection and management. The ESA requires partnerships between federal, state, tribal, and local governments as well as private landowners, working together to develop workable compromises and address management concerns.  Reducing the “toolbox” of options by limiting habitat protection and management may lead to less successful partnering efforts and make recovery of T&E species far more challenging. 

In summary, the proposed rule changes will undermine the purposes and effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. For the Act to be effective, habitat protection is crucial.  There are times when it is necessary to limit land-use and development activities to protect the greater long-term social and economic values of conserving biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. 

We urge you to retain the current definition of “harm” within the ESA. We believe the current definition strengthens species recovery and survival, and supports the important recognition by Congress in 1973 (Sec 2. (a) (3) that “these species of fish, wildlife and plants are aesthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our nation and its people.”

Signatories,

Meleesa Johnson
Executive Director, Wisconsin’s Green Fire

Dr. Stanley Temple
Beers-Bascom Professor Emeritus in Conservation;
University of Wisconsin-Madison and Senior Fellow Aldo Leopold Foundation

Wisconsin’s Green Fire – Voices for Conservation is a not-for-profit conservation organization. Its mission is “to advance science-informed policy and analysis that address Wisconsin’s greatest conservation challenges.”

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, photo by USFWS Midwest via Flickr