A Trump administration effort to limit protections for endangered species’ habitats could have outsized consequences in Alaska. That’s according to environmental scientists who warn of “severe” implications for ecosystems that could be targeted for resource extraction, if the proposed change goes through.
On Apr. 17, federal wildlife management agencies proposed redefining “harm” under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The Act says it’s unlawful for anyone to “take” an endangered species, with the word “take” meaning to harass, pursue, wound, kill — or to harm.
For almost half a century, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have understood “harm” to mean any “significant habitat modification or degradation” that results in death or injury to protected wildlife. The new definition would exclude habitat — “harm” would only apply to actions that directly harm the protected animals.
Splitting protections for species from their habitat
It’s a step in the Trump administration’s broader plan to roll back environmental regulations to remove barriers from energy and resource development — one that many environmental scientists in Alaska say they’re unsettled about.
Falk Huettmann, a University of Alaska Fairbanks wildlife biologist who studies seabirds, said he’s worried about what comes next.
“The implications of this are pretty severe,” he said.
Huettmann added that habitat conservation is imperative to the survival of endangered species across the United States — and, especially, Alaska.
“For instance, the boreal forest is a big, big chunk that we have in Alaska,” he said. “There’s a lot of it left, it's pretty pristine in some areas. Old growth forest — we have a lot of it. That includes Tongass and others.”
Huettman said his worst fear is that some habitats will be thrown into what he calls “a legal vacuum,” giving developers carte blanche to do whatever they want, short of directly harming an endangered species.
Retired environmental consultant Torre Jorgenson offered another hypothetical outcome.
“If a company only has to worry about taking out a Steller’s eider or a bowhead whale, they can easily avoid harming or killing an animal directly,” he said. “But if they alter or damage the habitats through their development process, they don't have to be concerned about that under this rule.”
A key source of conservation research could be lost
Jorgenson performed environmental impact surveys in the Arctic for about 40 years, making sure big oil and gas developments up north weren’t interfering with local vegetation, permafrost and bird habitats.
He said that over his long career, not all companies were hostile to that process — some even shared important conservation research they gathered through impact studies.
“Some companies were very proactive on their work,” Jorgenson said. “BP spent tens of millions of dollars on environmental studies gathering information for their environmental assessments. It actually benefited environmental management having all that data, and they produced a lot of data through their studies.”
But if the regulations change, he said that relationship could also dissolve.
Huettmann, the biologist, is awaiting the change with a mix of frustration and apathy. He said the Endangered Species Act, even in its original form, catalogued imperiled species less thoroughly than other lists, like the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. But this move, Huettmann said, could pull out any teeth the act had left.
He added that Alaska will shoot itself in the foot if it spoils its natural beauty, which draws in people from all over the world.
“Alaska owns a very high percentage of protected areas, like national parks,” Huettmann said. “People want to see about the wonders of nature and of the environment — if you get away from that and turn it into a mining state where everything can be done, everything can be drilled, then we lose that market.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received over 200,000 responses to its call for public comments about the proposed change, which closed on May 19. In an email, a Department of Interior spokesperson pointed to the Federal Register Notice and declined further comment.