Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing two lawsuits to protect endangered and threatened species, one against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and another against FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, “the Services”). The suits challenge new rules that gut essential protections for wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and threaten the survival of imperiled species. The rules make it easier for private companies or individuals to modify or degrade the habitats of listed threatened and endangered species and leave threatened species without core protections.
“Michigan’s wildlife deserves to be protected,” said Nessel. “That includes preserving the habitats it relies on for food and shelter. Removing automatic habitat safeguards could result in even more species being added to endangered or threatened species lists. I stand with my colleagues in my commitment to upholding the true purpose of the Endangered Species Act.”
The coalition’s first lawsuit challenges the Services’ rescission of the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm.” Previously, the rule defined harm to include “significant habitat modification or degradation” that could kill or injure wildlife by damaging species’ natural habitats and behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. Altering this definition reduces protections for habitats and makes it easier for them to be damaged or destroyed, even when that destruction ultimately threatens the survival of protected species.
The second lawsuit challenges two rule changes by FWS that reduce protections for threatened species and create a new process for designating areas as “critical habitat.” The first rule rescinds FWS’s regulations that automatically protect all newly listed threatened species. The second rule establishes a new process for designating areas as “critical habitat.” This rule will leave areas that are essential to species’ conservation without the protections that Congress intended. Together, these changes put threatened and endangered species and their habitats at risk and undermine the comprehensive protections Congress mandated under the ESA.
Research shows habitat loss is the primary cause of species decline. In both lawsuits, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition argue the Services’ rationale for gutting habitat protections is contrary to the intent of the ESA, which Congress enacted to protect endangered and threatened wildlife and the ecosystems they depend on for survival. In the second lawsuit, Nessel and the coalition argue that FWS’s rescission of automatic protections for newly listed threatened species is contrary to the ESA’s conservation purpose because it leaves threatened species without the protection necessary for their survival and substantially increases the risk that they will become endangered. The coalition argues these rules are also contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Michigan has a strong interest in protecting its natural resources, wildlife, and environment. Michigan has 26 plants and animals the Services have listed as threatened or endangered. Recovering these and other threatened or endangered species is key to protecting the People’s interest in conserving and developing Michigan’s natural resources.
Joining Nessel in filing the lawsuits are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington.
“Michigan’s wildlife deserves to be protected,” said Nessel. “That includes preserving the habitats it relies on for food and shelter. Removing automatic habitat safeguards could result in even more species being added to endangered or threatened species lists. I stand with my colleagues in my commitment to upholding the true purpose of the Endangered Species Act.”
The coalition’s first lawsuit challenges the Services’ rescission of the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm.” Previously, the rule defined harm to include “significant habitat modification or degradation” that could kill or injure wildlife by damaging species’ natural habitats and behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. Altering this definition reduces protections for habitats and makes it easier for them to be damaged or destroyed, even when that destruction ultimately threatens the survival of protected species.
The second lawsuit challenges two rule changes by FWS that reduce protections for threatened species and create a new process for designating areas as “critical habitat.” The first rule rescinds FWS’s regulations that automatically protect all newly listed threatened species. The second rule establishes a new process for designating areas as “critical habitat.” This rule will leave areas that are essential to species’ conservation without the protections that Congress intended. Together, these changes put threatened and endangered species and their habitats at risk and undermine the comprehensive protections Congress mandated under the ESA.
Research shows habitat loss is the primary cause of species decline. In both lawsuits, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition argue the Services’ rationale for gutting habitat protections is contrary to the intent of the ESA, which Congress enacted to protect endangered and threatened wildlife and the ecosystems they depend on for survival. In the second lawsuit, Nessel and the coalition argue that FWS’s rescission of automatic protections for newly listed threatened species is contrary to the ESA’s conservation purpose because it leaves threatened species without the protection necessary for their survival and substantially increases the risk that they will become endangered. The coalition argues these rules are also contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Michigan has a strong interest in protecting its natural resources, wildlife, and environment. Michigan has 26 plants and animals the Services have listed as threatened or endangered. Recovering these and other threatened or endangered species is key to protecting the People’s interest in conserving and developing Michigan’s natural resources.
Joining Nessel in filing the lawsuits are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
