A change to the Endangered Species Act means local species could go extinct, conservationists say
Local environmental scientists and conservationists are ringing alarm bells about how a dismantling of federal protections will harm local endangered species and broader ecosystems.
The species in danger include the Salish Sea’s iconic Southern Resident orcas and the Chinook salmon that feed them to less famous counterparts like the Island marble butterfly or the marbled murrelet, a small species of seabird.
The pushback comes after the Trump administration’s finalization on July 14 of the decision to rescind the legal definition of the word “harm” in the Endangered Species Act. The landmark 1973 law previously held a holistic view of the word that included anything that significantly altered or degraded species’ habitats or impacted their ability to eat, breed or seek shelter.
Under the new federal definition, “harm” would be limited to directly killing or injuring an animal — a change that tribes and conservation experts say paves the way for resource extraction, habitat loss and species extinction. The administration, meanwhile, claims the change “restores common sense” and respects private property.
John McLaughlin, an environmental science professor at Western Washington University, said the change is much more than a subtle change in wording.
“It’s essentially a backhanded way of gutting the Endangered Species Act,” he said. “You’re essentially consigning them to extinction.”
Jessica Farrer, research director at The Whale Museum on San Juan Island, agreed, calling the federal change “alarming.”
“It’s kind of like it’s just an anti-harassment law now,” Farrer said. “It’s going to allow animals to go extinct in peace, I guess, is how I see it. If we’re not going to protect their habitat and we’re only going to react when injury or death occurs, then we’re just managing their extinction.”
Environmental groups and tribes, including the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, are already challenging the change in court.
“This new rule is anti-science,” Steve Edwards, chairman of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, said in a press release. “I fear for the health of our people and our cultural lifeways.”
Species-specific impacts
Several endangered or threatened species in and around the Salish Sea will likely be impacted by the ESA change, namely Southern Resident killer whales; Oregon silverspot, Island marble, and Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies; wolverines; marbled murrelets; Oregon spotted frogs; Canada lynx; northern spotted owls; and salmon types like Chinook, steelhead and coho. A full list of endangered species broken down by counties is available on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife website.
Farrer said although the museum does see the kinds of direct injury or killing of orcas that the new version of the ESA considers harmful, the threats Southern Residents face are largely cumulative and mitigated by protecting their habitat.
“When you think about an animal or a population of animals that are in good body condition — they’re healthy, they’re thriving — and they get harassed, they have the ability to sort of rebound from that,” she said. “But when you have animals that are struggling because they live in a noisy environment, there’s a prey shortage, there’s contaminants, there’s low birth rate, there’s all of the things that Southern Resident killer whales are facing right now, that harassment has a much greater impact on them.”
Edwards likewise stressed that “given (orcas’) dependence upon Chinook as primary prey, they may not survive this new rule.”
McLaughlin also said coho salmon, which rear for almost two and a half years in fresh water and wetlands, will be severely impacted because their habitats will be at greater risk. Likewise, the marbled murrelet, a small bird that lives in old forests close to saltwater, could face the same dangers.
“People don’t see marbled murrelets in the forest; they’re really difficult to find, but you do see their habitat,” he said. “So you could basically remove that forest habitat in keeping with this new interpretation, and you will eliminate the marble murrelet, but it won’t be considered a harm.”
Gregory Green, a wildlife ecologist at Western, said the ESA changes will impact species that largely occur on private lands. He raised particular concern about how the federal ruling would affect habitat for marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl.
There are rigorous monitoring programs for both species under the Northwest Forest Plan, a Clinton-era agreement governing land use in the Pacific Northwest. Green said while there is no indication changes to the ESA will impact the plan, the plan does not apply to privately owned land, including timberland where nesting habitat could be lost to logging.
McLaughlin also raised concern about three butterfly species: the Oregon silverspot, the Island marble, and the Taylor’s checkerspot, whose habitats are mostly located on federally-managed lands. Various federal agencies have worked to preserve that habitat but would no longer be required to do so under the change, he said.
‘We’re all connected’
None of the wildlife on the endangered species list exist in a vacuum — a concept backed up by Indigenous land stewardship practices.
“There’s going to be cascading effects both up and down the food chain,” Farrer said.
McLaughlin said habitat loss is “by far the primary factor” causing species to become endangered or threatened and that removing the definition of harm from the ESA effectively severs the species’ connections to it.
“We’re all connected, we’re all relatives, and honoring those connections is absolutely essential,” he said. “Particularly for endangered species, those connections have frayed…maintaining those species, preventing them from going extinct, and even recovering them requires restoring those connections.”
The broader picture
Friends of the San Juans Executive Director Eva Schulte said the rollback of the ESA represents an especially traumatic time for the Salish Sea as it comes on the heels of a similar announcement in Canada.
The Canadian government is currently considering changes to its Species at Risk Act that would allow major industries to bypass requirements that their projects must not “jeopardize the survival or recovery” of endangered species.
“This is kind of a one-two hit for us in the Salish Sea to have Canada and the U.S. make backward moves at the same time,” Schulte said.
Local conservation groups are pushing back against both changes. Friends of the San Juans, for example, are urging residents to take action like calling officials on both sides of the border. Conservation Northwest, likewise, has joined a coalition of conservation organizations in challenging this rule in court.
Dave Werntz, the nonprofit’s science and conservation director, stressed that Washington has some of the strongest wildlife science, management programs, and conservation partnerships in the country.
“Continued investment in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is essential so the agency has the staff and resources needed to recover endangered species and conserve the habitats they rely on,” he wrote in an email. “Lasting conservation also depends on partnerships with tribal nations, private landowners, local communities and conservation organizations working together to protect and reconnect habitat across the state.”
Private landowners, particularly, could be a bright spot.
“Fortunately, here in Whatcom County we have landowners that prioritize the restoration and protection of salmon habitat,” said Annitra Peck, executive director of the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association. “This ruling will never take away the gift of community participation.”
Although state and local protections for endangered species are also on the books, it’s unclear how well they’ll hold up without the ESA behind them. Gaps in state’s regulations include a lack of regulations covering plants, planning on mandatory recovery or and a state-agency-wide consultation process, according to Friends of the San Juans.
“Because the state’s regulations are meant to serve as gap fillers to the federal ESA, without a more comprehensive interpretation of ‘harm,’ Washington state laws may fall short of protecting some of the endangered species in the state,” reads a statement the nonprofit’s legal director, Magali Cota.
Likewise, Farrer said removing the consistent, across-the-board regulations that the ESA required in the past will make it harder to protect species.
“The downfall is that it’s all going to be piecemeal now,” she said. “Before, you could kind of rely on this one law, the Endangered Species Act, that required all this extra permitting, oversight and mitigation… It’s not going to be as consistent across the board as it was.”
—By Sydnee Chapman