Efforts to restore rivers critical to spawning Atlantic salmon, as well as habitats for other federally-protected species in New England are under threat from regulatory rollbacks by the Trump administration, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The lawsuit aims to stop the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies from removing habitat destruction from the government’s definition of “harm” under the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

The Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation was one of several national and regional environmental groups behind the lawsuit, which was filed in a federal district court in Seattle. The lawsuit names U.S. Secretary of the Interior Douglas Burgum, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service as defendants.

Those agencies finalized a new rule last week narrowing the definition of “harm” prohibited by the Endangered Species Act so that it no longer covers activities such as mining, logging and development that destroy vital habitats — so long as no protected species are directly killed or injured as a result of that activity.

The federal government began including habitat destruction under its definition of “harm” in 1975, a decision that was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to violating the plain language and intent of the Endangered Species Act, the lawsuit alleges that the new rule “discards longstanding and critical regulatory protection for imperiled wildlife.” The lawsuit specifically pointed to examples in Maine where the CLF has opposed the relicensing of dams that block access to spawning grounds for federally-protected Atlantic salmon.

“This legal protection against significant habitat destruction that kills or injures endangered wildlife has proven essential to the ESA’s effectiveness at preventing the extinction of imperiled species and promoting their recovery,” the lawsuit stated. “It ensures, for example, that the dam blocking salmon migration, the logging project that cuts down a tree for nesting owls, and the oil and gas development in Alaska that disturbs polar bears are regulated in the interest of species conservation, just as the direct killing of these species would be.”

Representatives of the Department of Interior, which includes the USFWS, did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication Tuesday, nor did the the U.S. Department of Commerce.

In a recent statement promoting the new rule, Burgum said federal agencies had “abused” the old definition of harm to impose unnecessary restrictions on businesses and landowners.

“That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended. This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed,” Burgum said.

A spokesperson for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which regulates offshore fisheries and the protection of marine mammals, declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Connecticut is home to roughly a dozen plants and animals that are on the federal endangered and threatened-species list. In addition to salmon, those species include Hawksbill sea turtles, piping plovers, and the Puritan tiger beetle.

[RELATED: What could Trump’s changes mean for CT endangered species?]

Sarah Shahabi, a CLF attorney who worked on the lawsuit, said that migratory shore birds such as the piping plover and rufa red knots are at particular risk of development, which can destroy beaches that serve as critical stop-over points for the birds to rest and feed during their long migrations.

In many cases, she added, conservation efforts have secondary benefits for other kinds of plants and animals, as well as humans.

“Whether or not you’re super aware of the endangered species around you, there are probably protections that apply to the ecosystems that help with clean air, clean water,” Shahabi said. “Maybe they’re protecting us from storm surge or flooding, and these are all benefits to protecting habitat and protecting ecosystems, and we’re going to see that damaged by the Trump administration’s decision.”

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection — which maintains its own list of state-protected species — has also argued that removing habitat protections from the Endangered Species Act risks setting back local conservation efforts.

Jenny Dickson, the director of the agency’s wildlife division, submitted comments to the federal government in opposition to the proposed rule change before the public comment period closed in May.

“This proposed action would greatly weaken the ESA’s ability to protect imperiled species, create legal uncertainty, and undermine critical conservation efforts, while also increasing ambiguity and regulatory burdens on States,” Dickson wrote. “It would also negatively impact or reverse significant conservation successes we have achieved. We urge you to maintain the current definition of ‘harm’ to ensure the continued protection of our nation’s cherished wildlife and unique habitats and protect our natural legacy for future generations to enjoy.”

Absent any intervention by the courts, the new federal rule will officially take effect on Sept. 14.