This story was originally produced by the New Hampshire Bulletin, an independent local newsroom that allows NHPR and other outlets to republish its reporting.
Though they can be tricky to spot, the charisma and rarity of some of New Hampshire’s federally endangered and threatened species have bought them some local celebrity.
Recognizable and photogenic, for example, are the piping plovers that raise puffball chicks on the Seacoast; Concord’s own sky-colored Karner blue butterflies; and the rare and evasive Canada lynx. Others among these critters’ federally listed peers are less well-known: The dwarf wedgemussel and the Northern long-eared bat, for instance, don’t carry the same level of name recognition (at least, not in most circles).
But all of these species and a handful of other plants and animals are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered or threatened, meaning they face an elevated danger of extinction. Since 1973, species on these lists have been afforded certain federal protections under the Endangered Species Act.
What that means is now changing, however, as the Trump administration moves to reinterpret the law. The administration says the action aligns the act with its “original intent,” calling a previous definition of harm “misguided.” But conservation groups have opposed the change, arguing it removes restrictions on some of the biggest threats that wildlife face.
In New Hampshire, as in other states, the changes raise state laws protecting endangered species to new prominence, according to Erica Fuller, senior counsel at the Conservation Law Foundation.
“As a Northeast state that’s got logging and mining and a lot of activities, I do think the state’s Endangered Species (Conservation) Act is going to be really, really important,” she said.
The state law, however, has also been subject to recent changes and attempts to alter how it is enforced.
Here’s more on the evolving discussions around New Hampshire’s vulnerable species and the laws designed to protect them.
Reframing 'take'
President Donald Trump and federal officials have been engaged in altering the provisions and interpretation of the Endangered Species Act since his first administration, Fuller said.
Recent moves include a change to the way that “harm” is defined under the law. Previously, “harm” had included actions that would negatively impact species directly or indirectly, such as by removing habitat they depend on. Polluting a stream that salmon rely on constituted harm under this interpretation, for instance, Fuller said.
On Sept. 14, however, a rule change went into effect that removes the “harm” definition. The result is that only the direct killing of animals is regulated by the law.
Now, in a memo from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik that became public last week, the agency indicated that it was reframing its definition of “take.”
The concept of “take” refers to actions done to animals. Within the Endangered Species Act, it is used to describe the prohibited actions that affect endangered and threatened species, such as killing them.
The reinterpreted idea of “take” requires the action to be specifically and intentionally directed at an animal or animals to be a violation of the law, Fuller said.
“You have to affirmatively, intentionally direct your action at a particular animal. So, for example, you’re chopping a tree to get at a particular spotted owl that’s been keeping you awake at night, or you’re shooting a particular wolf that has been raiding your chicken house,” she said.
This differs from previous interpretations, which included under the umbrella of “take” actions that indirectly affected the animal, such as by felling trees in which bats are roosting.
Conservationists responded critically to the memo, saying it rendered the Endangered Species Act toothless.
“The fact that you could operate a speeding vessel in an area that you know there are right whales and their calves, and kill one, and still there’s not a problem there because you didn’t ‘intend,’ you didn’t direct your boat at the whale — you just sped knowing you shouldn’t — is just ridiculous,” Fuller said.
The vast majority of impacts to endangered wildlife are inadvertent, taking place in the process of other activities, like developing, mining, logging, and more, Fuller said. Habitat loss is “the primary threat to most species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states on its website.
The shift in understanding of “take” is “what we would probably call an interpretive rule,” Fuller said. This means that a new administration could adopt a new interpretation in the future, but it also means that the rule is harder to challenge in court, she said.
The Conservation Law Foundation has challenged the narrowing of the “harm” definition in a lawsuit in the Western District of Washington. Other groups have mounted similar challenges, including multiple Indigenous tribes, the Western Environmental Law Center, Defenders of Wildlife, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and others, Fuller said.
Attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia also filed two lawsuits in early September challenging the narrowing of the “harm” definition and other Trump administration changes to the Endangered Species Act. New Hampshire is not among the plaintiffs in those suits.
“State habitat protection laws might get stronger in some places and weaker in others. It's going to be really interesting to see what the states do in the next couple of years, whether they step up and try to fill the gap."
— Erica Fuller, Conservation Law Foundation
New Hampshire’s laws subject to debate
The federal changes increase the importance of state laws on endangered species, Fuller said.
“What the federal rollbacks are going to do is make it harder for the states to list species, and they’re going to give states, sort of, a license to give less protections to threatened species,” she said. On the other hand, she said, “states can actually go farther than the federal government, if they want to.”
A spokesperson for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services said in an email on Tuesday that the federal changes would not affect the conservation work carried out by the state. But nationally, some experts have expressed doubt that states have the resources to carry out the work required to protect endangered species.
In New Hampshire, state law enshrining protections for endangered species includes definitions for “harm” and “take” that are broader than the federal definitions currently in the spotlight. But legislators also mounted a challenge to some of the ways the state enforces the law earlier this year.
Endangered and threatened species are protected under New Hampshire law by the Endangered Species Conservation Act.
The act is grounded in the idea that “species of wildlife normally occurring within this state which may be found to be in jeopardy should be accorded such protection as is necessary to maintain and enhance their numbers,” it states.
That includes by prohibiting the “take” of endangered and threatened species — a list that includes all federally listed species, as well as dozens of others that were determined to be in danger of extinction through scientific review by state officials.
The New Hampshire definition of “take” is lengthier than the definition in the Endangered Species Act.
In New Hampshire statute, “taking” includes intentional killing and capturing of animals through a variety of means, like shooting, trapping, and snaring. But it also includes “lesser acts,” which include “disturbing, harrying, worrying, wounding, or placing, setting, drawing” wildlife; or helping another person carry out such acts.
New Hampshire also defines “harm” to wildlife in the rules of the Fish and Game Department as actions that kill or injure threatened or endangered species either directly or indirectly by degrading the habitats that are important to their survival.
One way the New Hampshire Endangered Species Conservation Act is implemented is through a permitting process for certain developments.
Projects that would require the disturbance of a certain amount of soil, for example, or that would see development in a shoreland zone require a check through a state database of endangered and threatened species information.
If the check turns up a record of threatened or endangered species or crucial habitat on the site, there may be further reviews to prevent harm to those species or require the developer to pay into a mitigation fund, according to DES.
But earlier this year, legislators sought to restrict the kinds of evidence that state agencies could use to justify these measures.
With House Bill 1603, Rep. Sayra DeVito, a Danville Republican, initially sought to require time-stamped photos of species of concern to justify conservation moves. As proposed, the bill also would have required agencies to attain written permission from a landowner or a search warrant in order to enter private property and procure such evidence.
Conservationists said the requirement would challenge the state’s ability to protect habitats of seasonal animals that are not found on sites year-round. It can be challenging to attain photographic evidence of a rare species even if it is present, they added.
DeVito said the bill was intended to protect property owners.
The bill was amended several times and ultimately passed; the version signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte on July 2 requires the director of the Department of Fish and Game to adopt new rules on how reports of endangered species are verified, and new procedures for attaining landowner permission to make observations on private property. The law became effective on Aug. 31.
During discussions about the bill, department employees said it was already their procedure to attain landowner permission.
The threats to New Hampshire’s wildlife are varied and expansive, including pollution, invasive species, disease, development, and climate change, according to the 2025 State Wildlife Action Plan.
There are 30 species listed as “endangered” by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. But the number of species that require conservation attention is larger than that, according to the plan, which lists 138 animal species and 188 plants as “species of greatest conservation need.”
The plan contains dozens of recommendations for how the state can help restore these species, including by restoring critical habitats, reducing pollution, and protecting sensitive areas from harm. It also contains policy recommendations, like reevaluating whether the penalties currently in place to “discourage” violations of state conservation laws are enough.
The recent changes could make moves like those less likely across the country, Fuller said.
“I think that it will mean that industries, for example logging, mining, and development, will have to do a lot less mitigation — or will recognize that this administration is not likely to enforce an action against them if they don’t do the mitigation,” she said.
In the meantime, state legislatures will hold more power over endangered species, making decisions like those made during New Hampshire’s most recent legislative session even more consequential.
“State habitat protection laws might get stronger in some places and weaker in others,” she said. “… I think it’s going to be really interesting to see what the states do in the next couple years, whether they step up and try to fill the gap.”
