Agency’s move likely to ignore indirect wildlife impacts

Federal agencies have rolled out a four-rule regulatory package that would revise key definitions and processes governing habitat, species protections, habitat designations and federal consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Newly proposed regulatory definitions for federal agencies implementing the ESA could make it easier for government projects to ignore indirect or uncertain negative wildlife impacts.

The proposals stem from the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order and recent Supreme Court decisions, which collectively directed agencies to reassess rules that could hinder domestic energy development or rely on agency Chevron deference. Chevron deference historically has allowed agencies latitude to interpret ambiguous statutory provisions and was overturned by the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo decision. If finalized, the changes to rulemaking would reshape implementation of the Endangered Species Act.  

In Part 1, we outlined how two of the proposed rules would reinstate earlier ESA frameworks for listing, delisting, and critical habitat designations. In Part 2 we discussed the proposal to eliminate FWS’ long-standing “blanket rule” for threatened species. In an episode of the new podcast “Our Wild Lives” published on Friday, The Wildlife Society’ policy experts discuss these rule changes. This final installment dives into proposed changes to definitions that govern how federal agencies evaluate the impacts of their actions under ESA section 7 consultation. 

Changing the definitions
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) propose reinstating the 2019 definitions of “effects of the action” and “environmental baseline,” two key terms used to determine whether federal projects may jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. 

• “Effects of the action” refers to the impacts caused by a proposed action, including indirect effects reasonably certain to occur.
• “Environmental baseline” describes the existing condition of a species and its habitat at the time consultation begins, including past and ongoing impacts not caused by the proposed action. 

By reverting to the 2019 definitions and restoring associated guidance on causal analysis, the proposal emphasizes stricter standards for linking impacts to federal actions. The proposed rule highlights factors such as an agency’s legal authority over the effect and whether the impact would occur even in the absence of the project. This may limit the scope of impacts considered during consultation, especially for cumulative or multi-step effects.

Reweighing the benefits

The proposal would also remove the 2024 “offset” provisions, which allowed planned mitigation, like future habitat restoration, to be considered when evaluating project impacts. The agencies argue that such future actions are too uncertain and that the ESA does not authorize weighing speculative benefits against reasonably certain harm during consultation. 

Together, these proposed changes would narrow the range of impacts analyzed during Section 7 consultation. If indirect or downstream effects are more difficult to attribute to federal action, agencies may be less likely to conclude that a project would jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. These changes would not reopen past consultations—they would apply only to new or ongoing consultations initiated after the rule takes effect.

The comment period for this proposed change opened November 21, 2025 and will close Dec 22, 2025.