Martha’s Vineyard and Massachusetts conservationists fear that changes to the federal Endangered Species Act could threaten piping plovers, right whales and other endangered species that frequent the area.
Last month, the Trump administration rescinded the long-standing definition of “harm” under the 53-year-old landmark legislation that has helped bring several species back from the brink of extinction.
For decades, the degradation of critical habitat came under the definition of “harm” and was disallowed under the Endangered Species Act. But on July 10, the Department of Interior and Department of Commerce announced the finalization of new rules that rescinded the definition, meaning only an action that directly injures or kills a listed species would be prohibited. The new rules effectively do away with longtime enviromental protections, paving the way for species to come under threat through habitat loss, conservationists argue.
The change has been concerning people who have been working to protect the species on the Cape and Islands. While Massachusetts still has some of the strongest local protections for endangered species, many of the animals that come to the Island are migratory and pass through other states that may not have as stringent regulations.
“Massachusetts takes species decline seriously and is being very protective as recovery goes on,” said Luanne Johnson, the executive director of BiodiversityWorks, a Vineyard-based conservation nonprofit. “But once that boulder starts rolling down the hill, it’s real hard to push it back up.”
The Vineyard has more than a dozen federally listed species that come ashore or pass through the area’s waters, including plovers, the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, northern long-eared bat, roseate terns, and several species of sea turtles.
While those species will continue to be safeguarded in the commonwealth from habitat destruction, those overarching protections will now fall to each individual state they pass through on their migrations.
For the ocean-based animals, protections could grow even slimmer as they often travel outside of state’s jurisdictions during their migrations up and down the east coast.
“If you destroy their habitat, these species cannot thrive,” said Jessica Redfern, the associate vice president of ocean conservation science with the New England Aquarium in Boston.
She said that this could especially be hard on species that go to the Gulf area, where there has been historically lots of oil and gas drilling. Seismic surveys and other development needed for drilling can be harmful to whales and other species.
The Trump administration has said that the old definition of harm was outdated and interfered with private property rights; construction could be held up if there was a chance of harm to habitat, a frustration for developers.
“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Department of the Interior secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.”
It is one of the many steps the administration has taken to weaken environmental regulations and cut back on permitting. While some have cheered those efforts, the new changes to the Endangered Species Act have drawn litigation from groups such as the Conservation Law Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity.
“This rule is an all-out assault on wildlife,” Erica Fuller, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, said in a statement. “If we can’t stop habitat destruction and harm, we will watch wildlife go extinct; it’s that simple. This move by the Trump administration yet again ignores law and science and forces industry to navigate a new rule after 50 years of a reliable process.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle, claims that cutting the past definition of harm goes against the purpose of the Endangered Species Act and more than 50 years of policy.
Here in Massachusetts, destruction of habitat will still not be allowed under state law. For Lyra Brennan, the coastal waterbird director at Mass Audubon, that’s a blessing.
“We can still feel very lucky to have the state endangered species act,” she said.
Still local regulations will have to stand on their own, and likely will have to be enforced with less funding support from a federal government that has deemed habitat protection less of a priority.
Ms. Johnson with BiodiversityWorks said she has seen fewer and fewer grants and money come in from federal agencies. That money often directly pays for the work that states do.
“There are less dollars,” she said. “Agencies are being thinned out; there’s less staff.”
That will put more pressure on local groups outside of the government to provide protections, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Brennan said.
Many on the Vineyard are up for the task. Conservation agents keep a close eye on plover chicks and other endangered shorebird species, students have helped pitch in to build shelters for terns, and dunes have been restored to safeguard nests.
That work, along with the Endangered Species Act, has resulted in success stories. Conservationists pointed out that the number of nesting plover pairs on the Vineyard has grown from just 12 in 1992 to 104 last year.
“We’ve come so far, we’ve achieved so much in Massachusetts and on the Vineyard,” Ms. Brennan said. “The important thing is to hold that ground and not slide backgrounds.”
This article appears in August 14, 2026.
GOOD. We have to protect animals to a point,but it’s gone a little too far with the plovers. On Duxbury beach there are times when a plover is in the road leading to the Gurnet in Plymouth that the ocean side is not only shut down,but the bay road leading to the Gurnet is closed and people can’t even drive to their homes. Why can’t they just take the chicks and the eggs to an incubator someplace
Yes, we do “have to protect animals to a point.” To the point where they don’t become extinct. That’s the “point.”
I wouldn’t be surprised that the skunks eating plover eggs have done more damage to the plover population than humans
Where were these calls for habitat protection when they began industrializing our waters with man made junk? The people and organizations quoted in this article are all on the record as fully supportive of industrializing our waters for profit with man made machines so these concerns feel disingenuous and political at best
By manmade junk do you mean drill rigs, production platforms, pipe lines, oil tankers and refineries, for profit??
Four voices carry the piece: Luanne Johnson (BiodiversityWorks), Jessica Redfern (New England Aquarium), Lyra Brennan (Mass Audubon), and Erica Fuller (Conservation Law Foundation). All four occupy the same position. The administration gets one paraphrase and one canned statement from Interior Secretary Burgum, whose name the paper misspells as “Burum.” No developer, no property owner, no landowner association, no legal academic defending the rescission. Nobody who thinks the prior definition overreached.
The news voice itself editorializes. “Weakens” in the headline, “effectively do away with longtime environmental protections,” and “paving the way for species to come under threat” are conclusions, not reporting. The strongest quote in the piece, Fuller’s “all-out assault on wildlife,” goes unrebutted.
The material omission is legal. The piece leaves the reader believing habitat protection disappeared. Critical habitat designation survives. Section 7 consultation for federal actions survives. The Section 9 direct take prohibition survives. Section 10 HCPs survive. The rescission narrows one regulatory gloss on “harm,” the one the Court upheld in Babbitt v. Sweet Home as a permissible reading under Chevron, not a compelled one. Post-Loper Bright, the agencies now argue the statute’s best reading is narrower. A reader should know that fight exists. The article does not mention Sweet Home at all.
What are you talking about, “gone too far?” The beach is their realm… the only existence they have, and it’s fragile. And no, they can’t be relocated. And you’re worried about whether or not you can drive your motor vehicle over the only place they have to exist? For heaven’s sake, stop thinking about yourself so much.
Exactly!
I understand the argument that the Endangered Species Act can be applied too broadly and unnecessarily interfere with private property and development. There is certainly room to examine regulations that may have gone too far.
But I think habitat protection is an area where we should be particularly careful. Massachusetts may continue to provide strong protections, but whales, sea turtles, birds and other migratory species obviously don’t recognize state lines. Protecting an animal while allowing the habitat it depends upon to be destroyed elsewhere doesn’t accomplish very much.
To me, this doesn’t have to be a political argument. There should be reasonable middle ground that protects property rights without abandoning habitat protections that have clearly helped species recover.
Weaken the Federal government.
About time! It’s ridiculous…
We really need to defend endangered wildlife and it’s not hard to do on Chappy. All we need is to stop those roaring big rigs from driving on the beach. People can go to the beach all they want, just not by driving and parking on wildlife.
How about intubating the eggs to protect from predators.
And remove the wind turbines that interfere with whale communication ovation and navigation.
And admit that current environmental measures do not necessarily protect the animals. There are other approaches
You DO realize that states and local governments have the right and authority to put their own protections in place? This bill simply removes the federal government from meddling in local business. That’s how our government works.
We humans are an adaptable species who can, and do, live just about anywhere. Why would we destroy(and that’s what we are doing) the very limited habitats of our fellow creatures?
Pave the beaches! Get rid of that sandy, no good environment. We can name, make statues of the last plover with quant poems of the last lonely bird, chirping chuck.