Washington Attorney General Nick Brown is co-leading a coalition of 21 attorneys general in two lawsuits challenging new federal rules they say weaken protectio
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown is co-leading a coalition of 21 attorneys general in two lawsuits challenging new federal rules they say weaken protections for endangered and threatened species and their habitats.
Brown said the lawsuits are aimed at maintaining protections under the federal Endangered Species Act, arguing the new rules make it easier for the federal government, private companies, or individuals to modify or degrade habitats of listed species and leave threatened species without core protections.
“The federal government’s attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act threatens the habitats of orcas, sockeye salmon, and other endangered species that are part of our economy, culture, and way of life,” Brown said. “These illegal actions ignore the will of Washingtonians and people across the United States, who overwhelmingly support protecting endangered species.”
One lawsuit will be filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The other will be filed against the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Endangered Species Act protects more than 1,600 plant and animal species and millions of acres of critical habitat nationwide, according to the coalition. The coalition said that since the law’s passage, 99% of protected species have been saved from extinction, including the California condor, the grizzly bear, the peregrine falcon, the grey whale and the bald eagle.
The coalition also pointed to Washington’s Southern Resident orca population, which it said has declined since 1995, falling from 98 whales to 74 whales today. The orcas were first listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act in 2005. The coalition said habitat protections under the law also play a critical role in conservation of Washington’s endangered and threatened salmon populations, which continue to face threats from habitat destruction.
The first lawsuit challenges the rescission of the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm.” Under the previous rule, harm included “significant habitat modification or degradation” that actually kills or injures wildlife by damaging species’ natural habitats and significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
The coalition argues that rescinding that definition removes the Endangered Species Act’s primary mechanism for protecting habitats of listed species and makes it easier for habitats to be damaged or destroyed, even when that destruction threatens the survival of protected species.
The second lawsuit challenges two rule changes by the Fish and Wildlife Service that reduce protections for threatened species and create a new process for designating areas as “critical habitat.”
The coalition said one rule rescinds regulations that automatically protect all newly listed threatened species, which it argues increases the risk newly threatened species will become endangered. The other rule, the coalition said, weakens habitat protections by establishing a new process for designating “critical habitat” that makes it easier for the agency to decline to include areas — particularly federal lands — even when those areas are relied on by endangered species.
The coalition argues the rules are also contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
