Trump’s Rollbacks on the Endangered Species Act of 1973
By: Grace Zhang
Signed into law by President Nixon in 1973 with bipartisan support, The Endangered Species Act remains one of the most effective pieces of legislation in the world protecting species at risk of extinction. The law works by allowing individuals and organizations to petition to get species listed as endangered or threatened. An endangered species is defined as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The petition then goes under scientific and public review before a species can make the list. After a species is listed, its crucial habitat is then protected and a recovery plan developed and implemented. Their population is closely monitored until they are considered recovered, after which the species is then removed from the list. The ESA also requires federal agencies to consult the Interior and Commerce Departments if they plan on undertaking activities that may threaten the species and can prohibit the activities if they prove to be too much of a threat.
The law has been mostly uncontroversial until recently due to its ability to prevent the development of areas where at-risk species live. This first major opposition to the ESA surfaced when the Supreme Court successfully halted the construction of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee, claiming it violated the ESA. However, the Republican party has been under pressure for a while to ‘modernize’ the law and the party itself believes that it “burdens landowners, hampers industry and hinders economic growth.” One issue they have with it is the fact that species rarely get removed from the list, claiming that it’s ineffective and inefficient. The recent changes to the law are merely a continuation of this sentiment.
There are six main changes:
Economic factors can now be considered when categorizing species
The government can now reference how much revenue is lost from protecting species when categorizing a species. For example, if a species lives in an area which has a lot of trees, the government can consider the amount of money that is lost if there was a ban on logging. The decision used to be made based solely on scientific evidence and reasoning. This information cannot directly influence decisions but it may increase public support for amending the ESA due to economic reasons and make it seem like the issue of conservation is an economic as well as biological one.
Protections for threatened species are reduced and considered on a case-by-case basis
Originally, threatened species enjoyed the same protections as endangered species, but this is no longer the case due to the changes made by the Trump Administration. This includes eliminating immediate prohibitions on harming, killing, export, or import of threatened species.
‘Foreseeable future’ is re-defined
In the definition of a threatened species, the phrase ‘foreseeable future’ is used. This new definition defines the term as “extend[ing] 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” meaning the government can ignore certain threats if they don’t believe it’s likely enough for it to happen or don’t think it will affect a species. This makes it easier for the government to disregard climate change and its consequences. The point of protecting threatened species is to prevent them from becoming endangered, but if the government doesn’t acknowledge certain risks because they don’t deem them urgent or likely enough, the species would only be put in further danger.
It’s easier to remove a species from the endangered category.
The standard for listing species is the same as not listing them in the first place, which relaxes the standards needed to remove a species from the list. This is a return to the original law but may increase the risk of listing a species as recovered when it actually isn’t.
All inhabited land must designated as critical habitat before designating uninhabited land
Critical habitat is land essential to preserving endangered species and it doesn’t matter whether or not the species currently lives on that land. The new changes make it harder for uninhabited land to be designated, since all inhabited land must be designated first, a process that may take time. This is problematic because species may be forced off land that they used to live on and these changes make it so the land doesn’t have to be protected and may become uninhabitable for them due to development during the time period that they are ineligible for designation.
Changed the interagency cooperation process
These changes are highly technical and at the moment their impacts are unclear. They are probably the least problematic changes made to the ESA as of now.
Sourced Consulted: