Public Comment on Proposed Rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA to Rescind the Definition of “Harm” Under the Endangered Species Act
Submitted on May 14, 2025
Revive & Restore respectfully submits this comment in strong opposition to the proposed rule change that would narrow the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This change would limit protections to only direct actions against individual animals, while excluding the habitat modifications and degradation that have been safeguarded by the Act for decades.
Revive & Restore is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in California. We are the leading conservation organization that supports the research, development, and field testing of new biotechnology tools to address global conservation challenges. Our portfolio spans the breadth of genetic rescue technologies, including genome sequencing, biobanking, advanced reproductive techniques, genetic engineering, and the functional de-extinction of lost species. To date, we have funded over 80 research projects at 70 institutions in 21 countries. Since November 2016, Revive & Restore has invested more than $26M to help save more than 200 endangered species from extinction.
Since 2022, we have partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Agricultural Research Service on the biobanking of endangered species. This project represents the first time that USFWS has partnered on an agency-wide biobanking initiative. Biobanking describes the intentional and indefinite preservation of living cells from wildlife to safeguard genetic diversity and enable genetic rescue.
The False Dichotomy between Species and Habitat Protection
The proposed rule change creates an artificial and scientifically indefensible separation between protecting individual animals and protecting the habitats that sustain them. The suggestion that direct harm to individual animals can be meaningfully separated from habitat destruction and other forms of harassment contradicts basic ecological principles. Species exist as components of ecosystems, not as isolated individuals. Their survival depends on intact habitats that provide food, shelter, breeding and nursery sites, and the ecological relationships that sustain populations.
As practitioners developing cutting-edge biotechnologies for conservation, we emphasize that our work is not an alternative to habitat protection—it is entirely dependent upon it. No amount of genetic engineering, advanced reproductive technology, or biobanking can save a species that has nowhere to live.
Consensus amongst Conservationists
Revive & Restore also hosts a Genetic Rescue Forum with 430 members, experts in topics related to the genetic rescue of species for wildlife and marine conservation. Membership is by invitation only, and includes an international group of conservationists, field biologists, land managers, population geneticists, genome engineers, social scientists, ethicists, and science journalists. Just recently, there has been heated discussions between members of the forum about the rolling back of ESA protections. Everyone who has commented on the issue has voiced strong opposition to the proposed change because of the profoundly detrimental effect it would have to species’ protection.
Our leadership position, at the intersection of biotechnology and conservation, provides a critical perspective on this proposed rule change. Far from diminishing the importance of habitat protection, advances in conservation biotechnology have reinforced it.
The Critical Need for Genetic Rescue in Conservation
Climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, and the over-harvesting of wildlife have led to catastrophic declines in many species. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), approximately 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction—more than ever before in human history. As a result, many surviving species persist only in small, isolated populations that are highly inbred, threatening their long-term recovery.
Genetic rescue is the process of increasing genetic variation within a population via breeding with captive-bred, translocated, or individuals produced with advanced reproductive technologies (such as cloning). In recent decades, cloning and gene editing technologies have introduced new pathways for genetic rescue in wildlife species. However, these biotechnologies must be paired with population- and ecosystem-oriented conservation measures to succeed. Only through an integrated approach can we work to mitigate the alarming loss of genetic variation that is placing more and more species at risk of extinction.
Beyond the False Dichotomy: Biotechnology and Habitat Protection Must Work Together
In our work—from genomic interventions to advanced breeding to cloning—habitat protection is not just complementary to biotechnology; it is a non-negotiable prerequisite if biotechnological approaches are to have any conservation value whatsoever. Coral conservation and sea otter recovery provide two compelling examples of why genetic rescue and habitat protection must work hand-in-hand. But perhaps the best example of why habitat is critical to the recovery of a species is the seminal example of genetic rescue prior to the biotech era: the Florida Panther.
The Florida Panther’s Comeback
The Florida panther represents one of the most well-known and compelling examples of successful genetic rescue, but it remains entirely dependent on habitat protection. By the early 1990s, the isolated South Florida population had dwindled to fewer than 30 individuals suffering from severe inbreeding depression, and extinction was imminent. At that time, it was not a lack of habitat and prey that was preventing recovery, but the genetic defects of inbreeding. In 1995, wildlife managers translocated eight female Texas cougars to add new genetic diversity to the bottlenecked Florida population. This genetic rescue effort proved remarkably successful; the negative symptoms of inbreeding decreased, and the population rapidly grew in just a few years. Positive population growth has continued for nearly twenty years to the present, as the current population is estimated at approximately 200 individuals. However, this genetic rescue success story would have failed without concurrent habitat protection. Today, Florida panther recovery is not threatened by a lack of genetic diversity, but by the availability, connectivity, and quality of its habitat.
Despite increasing numbers, Florida panthers still occupy less than 5% of their historical range, confined primarily to a fragmented landscape. These wide-ranging predators require vast territories (up to 200 square miles for a single male) and wildlife corridors that connect subpopulations. Vehicle collisions on roads bisecting panther habitat remain a leading cause of mortality, with 25 panthers killed in 2024 alone.
The proposed rule change would catastrophically undermine panther recovery by allowing development and road construction that fragments habitat without constituting “harm” unless directly killing individual panthers. Even after successful genetic intervention, the species remains entirely dependent on preserving adequate, connected habitat for its continued recovery. While genetic diversity is not a problem today, it could become an issue again without continued protection of remaining habitats and wildlife corridors. The genetic rescue accomplished through translocation will be steadily eroded as the population again becomes fragmented into small, isolated groups vulnerable to inbreeding depression. If habitat degradation is no longer considered “harm,” we risk reversing three decades of conservation success and returning this iconic species to the brink of extinction.
Coral Reef Conservation
Around half a billion people globally rely on coral reefs. Corals build reef structures that 1) support over a quarter of all marine life, 2) supply compounds used in medicine, 3) shield coastlines from storm damage, flooding, and erosion, 4) drive local economies through fisheries, tourism, and recreation, and 5) hold significant cultural importance. Devastatingly, over half of the world’s coral reefs have been lost in recent decades, and by 2050, 90% of the planet’s corals are projected to be gone. Climate change, disease outbreaks, pollution, and a myriad of human activities are outpacing the natural capacity of corals to evolve and adapt, threatening the persistence of critical marine ecosystems. The world has just witnessed the Fourth Global Bleaching Event, which impacted 84% of the world’s reefs and decimated both wild and restored corals from Florida to the Great Barrier Reef.
Hope persists through the work of a tireless community of conservation practitioners and scientists developing innovative and cutting-edge tools for the conservation of the world’s precious corals. Advances in biobanking, facilitated adaptation to thermal stress and disease, hybridization, and even stem cell therapy offer new ways to combat the devastating impact of human-induced climate change. However, these sophisticated interventions depend entirely on maintaining habitable oceans and protecting reef habitats from physical damage, sedimentation, pollution, and continued climate change.
The proposed rule change would allow activities such as degrading water quality without constituting “harm” to corals unless directly affecting living specimens. For example, sedimentation from coastal development and dredging projects smothers and kills corals, regardless of whether they have been genetically engineered. Furthermore, as climate change accelerates, increasingly warm and acidic seawater threatens to outpace the benefits offered by biotechnology. While tools like facilitated adaptation and stem cell therapy may enhance coral heat tolerance to some extent, these gains are unlikely to match the growing frequency and severity of marine heatwaves driven by unmitigated global warming.
Without protecting reef habitats from these local and global threats, emerging technologies cannot repair the whole-ecosystem damage that is occurring in our oceans, undermining extensive restoration efforts and making survival extremely unlikely for outplanted corals. Creating further barriers to the conservation of these essential ecosystems by enabling the continued degradation of fundamental remaining habitat could push the situation past the point of no return.
Sea Otter Recovery
Once widespread along the U.S. West Coast and connected to northern populations, sea otters were nearly driven to extinction by the maritime fur trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. While protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have helped some populations recover, efforts to reintroduce sea otters within certain areas of their original range have so far been unsuccessful.
Today, a significant, multi-stakeholder effort is using biotechnologies coupled with conventional conservation approaches to uncover why many reintroductions have failed. Scientists are developing essential genomic resources to understand the genetic health of remaining populations, especially in Elkhorn Slough, one of the few remaining strongholds for southern sea otters. Data have been collected on the genetics, kinship, and social behavior of more than 100 otters in this estuary. By sequencing their genomes and tracking family movements, researchers aim to assess inbreeding levels and gather dispersal data to guide future translocation efforts.
Though sea otters currently persist in parts of California, this has only been possible thanks to ESA protections that preserve their critical habitat. As keystone species that maintain the structure and productivity of kelp forests, otters also depend on these marine ecosystems for survival, particularly to escape from predators. If activities that degrade kelp forests are no longer considered “harmful” to sea otters under federal protection, the recovery of this species could be severely compromised. Without healthy kelp forest habitat, not only are sea otter reintroduction efforts likely to fail, but we also risk further population declines and loss of genetic diversity in this already vulnerable species. In this situation, biotechnologies like population genomics would have a dramatically reduced impact on conservation outcomes.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Revive & Restore strongly urges maintaining the current science-based definition of “harm” that includes actions destructive to habitats. Narrowing this definition would artificially separate species from their habitats in a way that contradicts ecological interactions and would render many promising biotechnological conservation approaches impossible to implement.
As practitioners of conservation biotechnology, we cannot overstate how counterproductive it would be to create a regulatory framework that fails to recognize this fundamental reality. The proposed rule change would sever the essential connection between biotechnology and habitat protection, undermining both traditional and innovative approaches to preventing extinction.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Phelan and Stewart Brand
CoFounders, Revive & Restore
