Recently proposed changes to the national Endangered Species Act could have devastating consequences to some of the most vulnerable species by weighing their value – and that of their habitat – against “economic impacts,” “national security” and other ambiguous and hard-to-scientifically quantify variables, according to various local environmental experts.

The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced on Nov. 19, 2025, four specific rules that would alter how the Endangered Species Act is implemented in an effort “to strengthen American energy independence, improve regulatory predictability and ensure federal actions align with the best reading of the law” according to a press release from the federal agency.

Public comment is encouraged on these proposed changes through Dec. 22, by going tothe Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association’s website. The comment is in regard to:

• Endangered and Threatened Species: Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat

• Endangered and Threatened Species: Interagency Cooperation

• Endangered and Threatened Species: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

• Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat​

“The proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act could have devastating consequences for listed species by weakening federal protections,” said Amber Wiewel, of Hawk Mountain Sanctuary and Pennsylvania’s Bird Atlas Coordinator. “These changes will create loopholes that industry groups would use to their advantage to prioritize development and other economic factors at the expense of some of our most vulnerable plants and animals.”

One of the four proposed rule changes involves listing and critical habitat. Specifically:

• Listing and critical habitat (50 CFR part 424):

The services jointly propose to restore the 2019 regulatory text governing listing, delisting and critical habitat determinations. The proposal ensures decisions are based on the best scientific and commercial data available while allowing transparent consideration of economic impacts. It reestablishes the longstanding two-step process for designating unoccupied habitat, restores clarity to the definition of “foreseeable future” and reinstates flexibility to determine when designating critical habitat is not prudent.

Matthew Wilson, director of Susquehanna University’s Freshwater Research Institute and someone with extensive background in working on the Endangered Species Act in previous employment, admitted he has several major concerns with this point.

“The first is the use of ‘commercial’ data. This – by definition – means someone with a commercial interest in the outcome of a ruling can weigh in on the decision, introducing inherent bias,” he said. “The second issue is the use of ‘consideration of economic impacts.’ This is perhaps the greatest concern in this entire document. The intentional vague wording here implies that if protection of a species would have any cost to a private party (business or individual) then that could be grounds to ignore protection of critical habitat.”

Weighing the loss of species populations against loss of economic benefit makes no sense scientifically, according to Dr. Peter Petokas, a longtime local researcher and advocate for the Eastern hellbender.

“Humans have made serious mistakes in the past, with the loss of many species due to environmental damage sustained to provide economic benefit. We cannot justify the taking of a species for the sake of economic gain. We should be on a path to a sustainable energy future and not promote further development of fossil fuel resources that have measurable impact to biodiversity,” he said. “How do we explain to future generations biodiversity losses for the sake of increasing oil production when we should be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? When or where resource extraction proffers major risks to rare or declining species populations, we must seek alternative sources even if the economic benefit is significantly less. We should not attempt to balance species’ losses with economic gain; rather, the health of a species must be given much greater weight over potential economic benefit.”

The second proposed rule change involves interagency cooperation:

• Interagency cooperation (50 CFR part 402):

The services jointly propose to return to the 2019 consultation framework by reinstating definitions of “effects of the action” and “environmental baseline,” removing the 2024 “offset” provisions and restoring section 7 procedures consistent with the statutory text. These changes respond directly to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference standard and reaffirmed that agencies must adhere strictly to the law as written.

Among this is the definition of the concept of the term “harm” when it relates to species of concern.

“The greatest harm to many threatened and endangered species is loss of habitat. By redefining ‘harm’ to eliminate habitat damage or loss as a factor when determining species status ignores the importance of habitat to species success,” said Petokas. “For example, a significant factor in the decline of the Eastern Hellbender has been habitat loss due to timber harvesting, mineral mining, agricultural practices, and the construction of roads and railways. To remove the effects of habitat destruction from other factors influencing the decline of the eastern hellbender is to ignore the largest factor affecting the ability of extant populations from undergoing recovery from decline.”

The third proposed rule change to the Endangered Species Act involves the blanket rule option:

• Threatened species protections (50 CFR part 17; section 4(d)):

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to eliminate the “blanket rule” option and require species-specific 4(d) rules tailored to each threatened species. This approach reflects the single best reading of the statute under Loper Bright and ensures that protections are necessary and advisable to conserve each species without imposing unnecessary restrictions on others. It also aligns service policy with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s longstanding species-specific approach.

According to Petokas, the blanket protections for threatened species provide immediate protection for all threatened species without having to tailor protections to each species.

“Tailoring species’ protections is time consuming and would delay protection for species that are already clearly in decline or jeopardized by human-sourced direct and/or indirect impacts on species populations,” he said. “By slowing down the listing process, tailoring protections will likely push many threatened species into or closer to endangered status.

The final proposed rule change for the Endangered Species Act involves more clarifications on critical habitat:

• Critical habitat exclusions (50 CFR part 17; section 4(b)(2)):

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to reinstate its 2020 rule clarifying how economic, national security and other relevant impacts are weighed when determining whether to exclude areas from critical habitat. The revised framework provides transparency and predictability for landowners and project proponents while maintaining the service’s authority to ensure that exclusions will not result in species extinction.

“The use of terms like ‘economic,’ ‘national security’ and ‘other relevant impacts’ are again problematic. In particular is the use of ‘other relevant impacts’ to create a blanket option for exclusions,” said Wilson. “The final sentence also is a terrible misread of the Endangered Species Act. The goal is not simply to prevent total extinction of a species, but to improve species prospects long-term and ultimately delist them from the act by improving population and patch sizes across a species’ range.”

The Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association serves an 11,000-square-mile watershed of the Susquehanna River, including Sullivan, Lycoming, Clinton, Union and Northumberland counties. Read more at www.middlesusquehannariverkeeper.org.