The Shenandoah salamander, northern long-eared bat, and rusty patched bumblebee are among several federally endangered species in Virginia that could be affected by proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) announced by the Trump administration.
Last week, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) introduced a plan to roll back portions of existing protections for plants and animals. Under the proposal, economic factors would be considered when deciding whether to add species and habitats to federal protection lists—a process previously based solely on scientific criteria.
Virginia is home to more than 50 federally protected animal species, along with many others protected at the state level. According to the peer-reviewed scientific journal Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM), such habitat and species-level protections — when properly enforced — are critical for effective wildlife management and recovery.
“These proposals … will have the effect of likely meaning fewer species are listed, fewer species are getting the protections they need in their listing rules, and fewer critical habitat areas will be designated,” said Ramona McGee, wildlife program leader for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which operates offices in Charlottesville and Richmond. “That all undermines the goal and purposes of the Endangered Species Act to conserve and recover threatened endangered species.”
Currently, species categorized as “threatened” under federal law receive the same protections as those listed as “endangered,” including prohibitions against killing or harming them unless specific exemptions are approved. The proposal would remove these automatic protections for threatened species.
“This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense.”
The proposal also seeks to narrow the definition of critical habitat and make it easier for development projects such as drilling, mining, and logging to obtain federal approval.
“Someone who is wanting to build a data center or to build a pipeline will not have to consider as wide a range of impacts or effects from that action as they might otherwise have to under the existing regulations,” McGee said.
The proposed changes “would significantly narrow the scope of the effects that could be considered during that consultation process, and by extension, that means it will constrain the sort of conservation measures that could be put in place,” she added.
Environmental organizations and species-protection advocates argue that scaling back these rules will increase the risk of extinction and hinder recovery efforts.
“These regulations attempt to undermine implementation of one of America’s bedrock environmental laws, and they could seal the fate of animals that, without these protections, would disappear from the Earth,” Sierra Club Executive Director Loren Blackford said in a statement.
