National Wildlife Federation, Five Affiliates to Sue Over ‘Disastrous’ Wildlife Rollbacks

CHARLESTON, S.C. - The National Wildlife Federation, in partnership with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), and five of its state affiliates gave 60-day notice to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service that they intend to sue over the agencies' reckless and illegal attempt to eliminate protection for the habitat of protected species under the Endangered Species Act.

The agencies' unlawful regulatory shift could be a death sentence for at-risk wildlife and habitats. The agencies' recission violates federal laws including the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act itself.

"Wildlife cannot survive without the shelter, access to food, and safe places to rear their young that habitat provides," said Kristen Byrnes Floom, Public Lands Counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. "Eliminating the longstanding definition of harm undermines the fundamental purposes of the Endangered Species Act to prevent extinctions, conserve endangered and threatened species, and safeguard the ecosystems upon which these species depend. The Fish and Wildlife Service should withdraw this rule and instead strengthen state and federal efforts to recover species and restore habitats."

Habitat loss and degradation are among the most significant threats facing species. The agencies' recission removes the definition of "harm" from their rules. For decades, agencies defined harm to include "significant habitat modification or degradation" that kills or injures wildlife. This definition was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995.

"This disastrous recission attempts to pull the teeth out of the Endangered Species Act and tries to allow widespread destruction of iconic habitats across the nation, like our treasured long-leaf pine ecosystems in South Carolina," said Catherine Wannamaker, a senior attorney in SELC's Charleston office. "The recission is not just illegal, it makes no sense. To protect and recover imperiled species, you must protect their homes."

Removing this definition will risk accelerating destruction of habitat, which is the leading cause of species decline. The stakes from any narrowing of habitat protections are higher for wildlife in the South.

"Habitat protections under the ESA don't just benefit listed species. They help sustain the broader landscapes that support wildlife, including non-listed and game species," said Sarah Gledhill, president and CEO of the Florida Wildlife Federation. "As development continues to consume tens of thousands of acres each year in Florida, weakening these protections risks degrading the shared habitats that species such as the Florida panther, wild turkey, and gopher tortoise depend on."

"South Carolina is one of the fastest growing states, and the associated new development is really changing the landscape of our beautiful state - which is the reason a lot of people move here," said Sara K. Green, executive director of the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. "The habitat protections that the Endangered Species Act have provided are critical to preserving endangered species populations as well as many other species of wildlife that depend on those same habitats, including game species and migratory birds."

"To remove habitat considerations from how we conserve wildlife is simply illogical," said Tim Gestwicki, CEO of the North Carolina Wildlife Federation. "This proposal to remove habitat protections is a death knell for species."

"Simply put, degradation or loss of habitat harms wildlife. If I were to bulldoze your home, would you not consider that to be harmful to you?" said James Adkins, executive director, Association of Northwest Steelheaders. "Removing the definition of harm would put millions of acres of critical fish spawning habitat into jeopardy and remove current obligations to mitigate for existing impacts. The implication of this rule change would be the end of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest."

"The Hawaiian Islands, including Papahānaumokuākea Marine Sanctuary, and the warm ocean waters that surround them are remote and isolated making Hawai'''s wildlife susceptible to the harsh realities of finding new habitats when threatened," said Jonnetta "Jonee" Leina'ala Peters, executive director of the Conservation Council for Hawai'i. "Hawaii is infamously known as the endangered species capital of the world because of climate change, habitat loss, isolation, overfishing, and other threats. Changing the current ESA will place native, threatened, and endangered species at further risks, and further challenge the already strained economy, food sources, and people of Hawai'i. Keeping the ESA rules intact means a better future for our native endemic species, found nowhere else in the world, for future generations."

The Endangered Species Act is one of the most effective and comprehensive conservation laws in the world. It has prevented extinction for 99 percent of listed species. The law also has broad public support. It was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973, and since then, through 25 congressional terms and 10 presidential administrations, has regulated the destruction of habitat. The rule change risks the Endangered Species Act's legacy of successfully protecting our national heritage.