Indiana wildlife from bats to birds to mussels will have less protection from habitat destruction following a federal rule changing a definition in the Endangered Species Act.
The U.S. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce in July revoked the act's definition of “harm." Formerly the act said that harm entailed destroying or modifying habitat so much that important breeding or feeding behaviors were disrupted, leading wildlife to be injured or die.
Previously, destroying habitats that endangered species rely on would have required developers to seek permits or comply with certain standards to protect the endangered species. These requirements no longer exist.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in a July 10 news release, said “the prior definition of ‘harm’ was an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights.”
The rule change has spurred a series of lawsuits from states and conservation groups across the U.S. including the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Protection Information Center and Defenders of Wildlife. The suits all argue against changing the definition of harm.
“Converting natural landscapes to human-dominated land uses—like residential, commercial, and agricultural development, as well as logging, energy production, and mining adversely affects native species and contributes to their population decline in many ways,” the Defenders’ suit says. “Fundamentally, it deprives species of the resources they need to survive and reproduce.”
The U.S. Department of Justice in early October filed motions in these cases defending the federal government’s decision to remove the protections provided under the definition of harm.
“Regulatory overreach burdens American families and businesses, and these now-rescinded Endangered Species Act regulations are a prime example,” said Adam Gustafson, an attorney with DOJ. “The Department of Justice will continue vigorously defending President Trump’s efforts to uphold the Act as written and protect economic growth.”
Environmental groups in Indiana say this move is putting iconic Hoosier wildlife, such as the Indiana bat, at risk.
Redefining words within the act undermines its intent, said David Van Gilder with the Hoosier Environmental Council.
“Every child knows that if you find an abandoned kitten and you want it to survive, you have to feed it and give it shelter and give it water,” Van Gilder said. “[The administration is] saying that you can ignore what a particular species actually needs to live and you still haven't violated the Endangered Species Act and that's just crazy in my view.”
A federally listed endangered species, the Indiana bat has seen direct benefits from the Endangered Species Act. The Indiana chapter of The Nature Conservancy established the Bat Conservation Bank in 2021, which lets developers purchase credits to mitigate bats that die due to their projects. The program is exclusively funded through entities that cause harm as previously defined by the Endangered Species Act, said Indiana Chapter Executive Director Cassie Hauswald.
Indiana bats and other bat species have seen large population declines as white-nose syndrome spreads through caves where the bats hibernate. Money spent in Indiana to protect bats through the TNC program helps maintain high-priority conservation areas in the state.
“I'm bothered by the change because it absolves people of needing to care about harm that they're doing to species that are on the decline, and that's not responsible,” Hauswald said.
The bat bank is one of many proven solutions that have protected endangered species under the Act, Hauswald said.
Other conservationists point to the surging bald eagle population as evidence that protecting endangered species can help them rebound. At one point, the heavy use of the pesticide DDT nearly wiped out the bird of prey.
“We didn’t know it at the time when we were spraying that everywhere, but that had impacts to humans, too,” Hauswald said. “And I think that's the foolish thing that we could be doing here is hurting ourselves in the long run.”
