This summer, new federal rules were finalized to narrow the environmental protections included in the Endangered Species Act. Now, Rhode Island is challenging these changes.
On Sept. 9, R.I. Attorney General Peter Neronha P’19 P’22, alongside a coalition of 20 other attorneys general, filed two lawsuits — one against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the other against the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Plaintiffs argue the changes undermine wildlife protections and contradict the original goals of the ESA, which was enacted in 1973 to conserve vulnerable species of plants and animals as well as their ecosystems.
The changes ease restrictions on activities that can destroy habitats, like drilling and mining in wildlife habitats, as long as those activities don’t directly kill or injure the animals. This is due to the new rescinding of the regulatory definition of harm, which included “significant habitat modification or degradation.”
“If this new interpretation is allowed to become the operating rule for federal agencies, then endangered species will have effectively lost most of their legal protections, as actions that destroy or damage their habitats will no longer be illegal,” Professor of Environment and Society and of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology Dov Sax wrote in an email to The Herald.
“The drastic changes proposed go against the intent of the ESA and reduce protection for the species that need it most,” said Scott Ruhren, senior director of conservation at the Audubon Society of Rhode Island.
In a statement sent to The Herald, a FWS spokesperson wrote that the new rules still “prohibit conduct including harassing, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or collecting protected wildlife.” The Department of the Interior, which oversees the FWS, described the previous definition of harm as federal overreach that allowed “unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights.”
The FWS also changed the process for critical habitat designation, which usually protects certain geographic areas from development. Plaintiffs say could lead to more areas being excluded from protections. The FWS also reversed a rule that automatically extended some ESA protections to species newly categorized as threatened.
“Removing habitat protection and relaxing definition of harm as criteria are troubling and looming threats to rare and endangered species,” Ruhren wrote in an email to The Herald.
According to Tyler Kartzinel — an associate professor of environment and society and of ecology, evolution and organismal biology — the “single greatest threat to species is habitat destruction,” since habitat destruction diminishes animals’ access to food, water and shelter.
Rhode Island is home to 11 species classified as endangered or threatened under the ESA. In addition, a substantial amount of Rhode Island’s land is under ESA oversight.
“I think the state of Rhode Island has to act in the interest of its people, and the people of Rhode Island — like most people all over the country — have historically shown overwhelming support for the protection of endangered species,” Kartzinel wrote.
“The lawsuit points out that by pretending we can simply change the meaning of words to get what we want, the government is attempting to skip over the required process, break its own rules and further endanger the eleven species of our state that are currently considered at risk of extinction,” he added.
The White House did not immediately respond to The Herald’s request for comment.
Kartzinel also pointed to a Sept. 14 FWS directive that indicated a push to change the interpretation to only regulate harm that is intentionally directed at an animal.
This change would exclude activities that harm wildlife directly, not just their habitats, as long as killing or injuring wildlife was accidental.
Maxwell Silver is a senior staff writer covering health and environment.
