Editorial: Endangered Species changes bad for isles

Hawaii’s leaders and environmental advocates have been put on alert that its populations of endangered species will need even more careful protection at the state level, as the federal government seems uncommitted to that mission.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is being compromised by new rules promulgated by the Trump administration, which seeks to make it harder to list a species as endangered and to weaken the protections it offers the environment.

And this state has a lot to protect.

The islands’ geographic isolation enabled the evolution of an extraordinary number of species depending on its distinctive environment. Species protections also serve as safeguards for Hawaii’s treasured natural environment, treasured for its value to the state’s visitor industry as well as for its sheer beauty.

With more than 500 species currently designated as threatened or endangered, the islands are often called the “endangered species capital of the world.”

That status could easily diminish in the coming years, if new rules from the federal administration go into effect. Among other elements, they would make it easier to overcome protections by asserting that there would be economic harm.

The state is not entirely helpless, in that lawmakers could and should conduct a comprehensive review of its own law. Hawaii’s plants and animals, already threatened by climate change, will have fewer protections federally, and the state should bridge the gap.

The rules’ publication in the Federal Register is imminent, and they should be effective 30 days after that, said David Henkin, a Hawaii attorney for the national environmental law group Earthjustice.

Henkin pointed to a possible use of a congressional mechanism to defeat the new rules, something Hawaii U.S. Rep. Ed Case said he would pursue. That is worth a try, even if the maneuver is unlikely to succeed in this era of partisan standoffs on Capitol Hill.

The state’s federal delegation must stand up, along with other state representatives who are equally appalled by this action and make sure the issue doesn’t die.

There is also the possibility that the state Legislature could find ways of bolstering Hawaii’s own endangered-species law. However, there are some strengths in the federal statute that could not be replicated locally.

For example, it places limits on the actions of federal agencies, something the state has no jurisdiction to match.

Also, if a species is on the federal endangered list and is threatened by an action, the federal law requires the identification of critical habitat to be preserved for the species’ survival, which the state law doesn’t accomplish.

The best course is for the rule itself to be overturned legally, he added, something that should be possible if previous court rulings are any guide.

Henkin cited an example in which a court previously found a similar proposed provision to be at odds with the overarching species act. It would require that an action be shown to be capable, in isolation, of causing an extinction rather than merely contributing to it.

Lawsuits should be filed immediately. Hawaii’s land values would all but guarantee that habitat protections have an economic impact and could be negated.

That said, it bears repeating that the islands’ environment is itself part of Hawaii’s brand, and an economic asset in its own right.

Critics have charged that the rule specifically advantages industries such as mining and oil drilling. Hawaii may not have been its target, but the state’s precious species and habitats must not be written off as mere collateral damage of this ill-conceived regulation.