Change to Endangered Species Act Risks Survival of River-Dwelling Species

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog | National Park Service

What do piping plover, yellow-legged frogs, and coho salmon have in common?

They are endangered species who call rivers home.

Now, those rivers are at risk. A new rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will remove destruction of habitat from the Endangered Species Act’s definition of harm. If the rule moves forward as proposed, only activities that directly injure or kill endangered species will be prohibited under the Endangered Species Act. Activities that harm rivers, like inappropriate water management and unnecessary development, may be allowed. These activities could impair the habitat that threatened and endangered species need for mating, breeding, feeding, and the continued survival of the species.

Now is the time to stand up for the fish, frogs, and more that rely on rivers by telling the Administration to maintain the definition of harm to include the destruction of habitat, especially rivers.

About You

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

Mobile Phone (optional)

By entering my mobile number and checking this box, I agree to receive recurring text messages from American Rivers. Message and data rates may apply. Reply STOP to cancel.

Address

City

State

Zip Code

Personalize Your Letter

FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001

Rescinding the Definit...

Dear Ms. Foster and Ms. Grimm:
I strongly oppose the proposal to reinterpret the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The removal of habitat from the definition of “harm” will have broad impact on the environment, including important clean water resources.

Rivers are unique habitats. When rivers are polluted, dammed, or diverted, the fish and frogs that rely on them cannot easily relocate. They go with the water, and when that water is chemically imbalanced, or the flow regime altered, the impact on the species is inevitable and irrevocably harmful. Habitat cannot be separated from harm for the species that rely on rivers. Freshwater biodiversity is already in crisis, with a quarter of the world’s freshwater organisms endangered. Removing habitat protections will further risk the future of biodiversity and the numerous freshwater organisms Americans have come to enjoy for food and recreation. Moreover, the rivers themselves will be at risk from future development that may have long-term impacts on the country’s water supply.

Please reject this proposal and protect the ESA. Protecting habitat protects the clean water on which all life depends.

Thank you,

{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Last Name}
{user_data~Address}
{user_data~City}, {user_data~State}
{user_data~Zip Code}
{user_data~Email Address}