logo
As Trump administration looks to change Endangered Species Act, vulnerable animals in CT are at risk

As Trump administration looks to change Endangered Species Act, vulnerable animals in CT are at risk

Yahoo28-04-2025

Each spring on Falkner Island, which sits about three miles off the coast of Guilford, hundreds of roseate terns flock to the uninhabited five-acre island to breed and nest during the warm summer months before heading south again to migrate.
The roseate tern, one of a handful of federally endangered and protected bird species in Connecticut, has about 95% of its population in the state on the island each summer. Conservationists estimate the island is home to around 2,500 pairs of common terns and about 35 pairs of roseate terns. Falkner provides the only regular nesting location for federally endangered roseate terns in Connecticut.
As the home of the state's roseate tern colony, Falkner is designated by the National Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area and is protected as part of the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. There is no public access to the island to protect its endangered bird habitat.
A recent proposal by President Donald Trump's administration to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 has some conservationists in the state alarmed that rollbacks could endanger vulnerable species including the roseate tern.
Connecticut, like most other states, has an abundance of wildlife, with a handful of federally protected animals calling the state home including the bog turtle, the Indiana bat, the northern long-eared bat, the piping plover and the dwarf wedgemussel. Altogether, just over a dozen endangered species live in Connecticut. Dozens more are considered threatened or of 'special concern' but are not federally recognized and granted protections under the ESA.
Federal agencies have proposed the removal of habitat changes from the definition of 'harm' to endangered and threatened species. This move, conservation groups warn, could accelerate extinctions by allowing logging, mining, construction and other development to proceed in areas where endangered species reside.
'If they're not protected everywhere, they're not protected anywhere,' said Tom Anderson, a spokesperson with the Connecticut Audubon Society. 'Just because the terns are protected on Falkner's Island, a threat to the terns in another part of their range, that would threaten their population on the island because they migrate to other areas. This is true for many other types of animals.'
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have issued a proposal that habitat loss should not count as 'harm' because it differs from the direct targeting of wildlife — referred to in the statute as 'take.' If that interpretation is finalized, private landowners and industry operators could no longer be held liable under the ESA for clearing forests, draining wetlands or reshaping shorelines so long as they claim no intention to injure protected animals.
'Right now we're not seeing any impacts to the roseate tern or piping plover, but there is concern about future impacts,' said Milan Bull, senior director of science and conservation for the Connecticut Audubon Society. 'Everything is so in flux right now, it's hard to see what is going to have an impact.'
Chris Elphik, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Connecticut, said that since the ESA was passed over 50 years ago, it is thought to be responsible for saving hundreds of animals from the brink of extinction.
'It has been tremendously successful,' Elphik said. 'There's a couple different ways of looking at it. There have been a number of different studies looking at how these species would have gone extinct if we didn't have the ESA. They clearly show that we would have had many, many extinctions if not for the legislation. In Connecticut, you can go see bald eagles now because there are close to 100 nesting areas in the state. That's a bird that didn't occur in Connecticut as early as the 1980s. That recovery is entirely from protections. Peregrine falcons and ospreys have also made recoveries in the state.'
While national wildlife refuge areas will most likely remain protected, lands that are not offered protection may become vulnerable, even if there are known endangered species to inhabit there, according to Elphik. The ESA doesn't protect all parts of a species' range equally. Rather, the Endangered Species Act provides more effective protection for habitats that happen to be on federal land as opposed to private land.
But endangered species often depend on private lands for habitat, and the ESA has long sought to protect these species and their habitats, even on private property, Elphik said. The ESA prohibits 'take' of listed species, which includes harming or disturbing them, but also allows for permits for incidental take if a landowner's actions could impact a species. The proposed change would make it easier to develop private lands where endangered species are found because 'take' would be more narrowly defined to directly killing or harming them, not taking away their habitat.
'Many endangered species live on private lands in Connecticut,' Elphik said. 'What the ESA does is it provides protections even on privately held lands, which really distinguishes it from other state protections that preclude private lands. The federal ESA is seen as one of the strongest pieces of animal legislation anywhere in the world. It's unusually strong compared to other environmental protections.'
In Connecticut, approximately 93.8% of land is privately owned, according to data. This means that a significant portion of the state's land is not owned by the government or other public entities, possibly making it easier to develop under the ESA. The amount of developed land in Connecticut has increased by approximately 20% over the last 30 years while the state's population has only grown by approximately 11%, data shows.
'The risk is large but not certain with this revision,' Elphik said. 'The majority of Connecticut is private land, which can open us up for more potential risks than other states. The main constraint in Connecticut is that the state's ESA only really applies to state land. So the federal ESA has been the gold standard for ensuring private land is protected for endangered species.'
In 2019, during Trump's first term, the ESA underwent significant revisions, primarily focusing on how protections for threatened species are applied. A key change was the removal of a 'blanket' rule that automatically extended the same protections to threatened species as endangered species. In response to the rollbacks, Connecticut joined 16 other states, the District of Columbia and New York City in a federal lawsuit.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong told the Courant his office is 'reviewing legal options' to stop the proposed change to the ESA.
'This proposal will likely result in the permanent extinction of endangered species, all so that big businesses, including the fossil fuel industry, can have unfettered access to exploit their habitats,' Tong said. 'We sued and stopped this kind of action before, and we are reviewing all legal options with our multistate partners to protect our nation's most iconic and threatened species.'
Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@courant.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Big Beautiful Bill Tweet
Marjorie Taylor Greene's Big Beautiful Bill Tweet

Buzz Feed

time29 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Big Beautiful Bill Tweet

Yesterday, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene basically admitted that she didn't read President Donald Trump's championed "One Big, Beautiful Bill" before voting "yes" on it. In a tweet, she wrote, "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years... I would have voted NO if I had known." Obviously, any representative voting on a bill without knowing the full extent of its contents is concerning, regardless of party lines. But the "One Big, Beautiful Bill" — which passed through Congress last month with a 215 to 214 vote — is especially concerning as it includes: Perhaps unsurprisingly, the internet was not impressed with Greene's honesty. Here's what they're saying:

What is the CBO? A look at the small office inflaming debate over Trump's tax bill

time29 minutes ago

What is the CBO? A look at the small office inflaming debate over Trump's tax bill

WASHINGTON -- A small government office with some 275 employees has found itself caught in the political crossfire as Congress debates President Donald Trump's 'one big beautiful bill.' The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the legislation would increase federal deficits by about $2.4 trillion over 10 years. That's a problem for a Republican Congress that has spent much of the past four years criticizing former President Joe Biden and Democrats for the nation's rising debt levels. The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are taking issue with CBO's findings. They say economic growth will be higher than the office is projecting, resulting in more revenue coming into government coffers. Meanwhile, Democrats are touting CBO's findings as evidence of the bill's failings. Here's a look at the office at the center of Washington's latest political tug-of-war. Lawmakers established the Congressional Budget Office more than 50 years ago to provide objective, impartial analysis to support the budget process. The CBO is required to produce a cost estimate for nearly every bill approved by a House or Senate committee and will weigh in earlier when asked to do so by lawmakers. It also produces a report each Congress on how to reduce the debt if lawmakers so choose with each option including arguments for or against. Plus, it publishes detailed estimates when presidents make proposals that would affect mandator spending, which includes programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers created the office to help Congress play a stronger role in budget matters, providing them with an alternative to the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of a Republican or Democratic administration, depending upon the president in office. CBO hires analysts based on their expertise, not political affiliation. Staff is expected to maintain objectivity and avoid political influence. In evaluating potential employees, the CBO says that for most positions it looks at whether that person would be perceived to be free from political bias. Like other federal employees, the CBO's staff is also prohibited from making political contributions to members of Congress. The CBO's director, Phillip Swagel, served in former Republican President George W. Bush's administration as an economic adviser and as an assistant secretary at the Treasury Department. The stakes are incredibly high with Republicans looking to pass their massive tax cut and immigration bill by early July. Outside groups, Democrats and some Republicans are highlighting CBO's analysis that the bill will increase federal deficits by about $2.4 trillion over 10 years and leave 10.9 million more people uninsured in 2034. Republicans spent much of Biden's presidency focused on curbing federal deficits. They don't want to be seen as contributing to the fiscal problem. GOP lawmakers say the CBO isn't giving enough credit to the economic growth the bill will create, to the point where it would be deficit-neutral in the long run, if not better. "The CBO assumes long-term GDP growth of an anemic 1.8% and that is absurd," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. 'The American economy is going to boom like never before after the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' is passed.' Republicans began taking issue with the CBO even before Trump and the current Congress were sworn into office. 'CBO will always predict a dark future when Republicans propose tax relief – but the reality is never so dire," Rep. Jason Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a December news release. Recently, House Speaker Mike Johnson has been taking digs at the office. 'The CBO is notorious for getting things WRONG,' he said in a Facebook post. In April 2018, CBO said that tax receipts would total $27 trillion from fiscal years 2018 to 2024. Receipts came in about $1.5 trillion higher than the CBO projected. Republicans have seized on that discrepancy. But the numbers don't tell the whole story. Some of the criticism of the CBO ignores the context of a global pandemic as the federal government rushed to prop the economy up with massive spending bills under both Trump and Biden. In a blog post last December, Swagel pointed out three reasons for the higher revenues: The primary reason was the burst of inflation that began in March 2021 as the country was recovering from COVID. That burst of inflation, he said, led to about $900 billion more in revenue. There was also an increase in economic activity in 'the later years of the period' adding $700 billion. Also, new tariffs added about $250 billion, with other legislation partially offsetting those three factors.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store