H.R. 1897 — ESA Amendments Act of 2025

This section establishes a national listing work plan under new subsection (j) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (As background, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service determine whether to list species as endangered or threatened based on five statutory factors—habitat loss, overutilization, disease or predation, inadequate regulations, or other threats—and concurrently designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable; listing petitions trigger 90-day and 12-month findings, with court orders often setting deadlines.) The Secretary of the Interior must submit an initial work plan to Congress with the budget request for the first fiscal year beginning at least 365 days after enactment, and annual updates thereafter, each covering schedules for "covered species" (i.e., unlisted species subject to a listing petition under ESA section 4(b)(3) or otherwise under consideration) to complete, within a five-fiscal-year period beginning October 1 after submission: (1) 12-month petition findings; (2) proposed or final listing determinations required by court order, decree, or settlement; and (3) proposed or final critical habitat designations required by court order, decree, or settlement. In developing work plans, the Secretary must: (1) assign each covered species a priority classification of 1 (critically imperiled, highest priority) through 5 (limited data or listing benefit) using the USFWS's 2016 prioritization methodology (81 Fed. Reg. 49248); (2) allow five-year extensions beyond plan deadlines for priorities 3-5 under specified conditions (e.g., ongoing studies for priority 3); (3) permit priority revisions; and (4) include requested funding amounts, including for potential emergency listings. The Secretary must act on listing petitions by the fiscal year-end specified in the most recent work plan; priority assignments are not final agency actions; and the provision does not affect emergency listing authority or authorize new regulations beyond implementation.

This section amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to require the Secretary of the Interior, in determining whether to list a species as endangered or threatened under ESA Section 4(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)), to take into account and document the net conservation benefit of any approved Conservation Benefit Agreement (CBA) relating to the species, as defined in new ESA Section 10(k). It further establishes a CBA program under new ESA Section 10(k), under which covered parties (i.e., private property owners, counties, States or State agencies, Tribal governments, or parties holding Federal permits or leases) may submit proposed CBAs—supporting documents for permits to enhance propagation or survival of affected species (i.e., candidates, species proposed for listing, or declining species at risk of candidacy)—with the Secretary required to determine completeness within 30 days and approve or reject within 120 days if complete, provided the CBA complies with specified regulations (50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(c)(1) or 17.32(c)(1)) and assures covered parties that, if a covered species is listed post-agreement, no additional conservation measures or land/water/resource use restrictions will apply. Approved CBAs, including programmatic CBAs authorizing enrollment of additional covered parties, trigger issuance of incidental take permits if the species is listed; provide technical assistance; apply to Federal lands via permits or leases; and exempt approvals from ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation, National Environmental Policy Act review, and public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(B). (Thus, the provision incentivizes pre-listing conservation by landowners and others through regulatory assurances and streamlined processes, potentially reducing future listing pressures.)

This section modifies the requirements for incidental take permits under §10(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (i.e., permits authorizing take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities, conditioned on an applicant-submitted habitat conservation plan). Specifically, it (1) requires such permits to include the legally binding terms and conditions of the related conservation plan; (2) directs other federal agencies, as applicable and to the maximum extent practicable, to adopt the permit's mitigation measures in any authorizations they issue for the covered action; and (3) prohibits the Secretary from seeking additional mitigation measures from the permittee through other federal, state, or local processes, if consistent with the conservation plan. This section further exempts the Secretary's issuance of such permits from §7(a)(2) consultation requirements (i.e., interagency consultation to ensure federal actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy critical habitat).

This section exempts the issuance of incidental take permits under ESA section 10(a)(2) from being considered a major federal action requiring review under NEPA section 102(2)(C). (As background, such permits authorize the unintentional take—i.e., harm, harass, or kill—of listed endangered or threatened species incidental to otherwise lawful activities, conditioned on an applicant-submitted conservation plan that assesses impacts, requires mitigation measures with funding, evaluates alternatives, and ensures no appreciable reduction in species survival and recovery; previously, permit issuance typically required an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under NEPA.)

This section amends Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to require the Secretary, upon listing a species as threatened, to issue protective regulations necessary and advisable for the species' conservation, considering conservation and economic effects based on the best scientific and commercial data available and consistent with the ESA's findings, purposes, and policy. If such a regulation prohibits an act under ESA section 9(a) (i.e., take of listed species), the Secretary must (1) establish objective, incremental recovery goals, (2) decrease the regulation's stringency as those goals are met, and (3) authorize willing states to manage the species upon meeting each goal (continuing until delisting), with a status review to determine delisting upon full goal achievement. Such regulations apply in states with ESA section 6 cooperative agreements only to the extent adopted by the state. States may petition the Secretary to adopt their recovery strategy for a threatened or candidate species as the basis for such regulations within the state; the Secretary must approve or deny within 120 days (publishing the decision within 60 days), explaining any denial and allowing resubmission, and if approved must adopt the strategy with objective evaluation criteria (revising if ineffective). The section further amends Section 4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA to require recovery plans for endangered species downlisted to threatened status to include objective, incremental recovery goals consistent with new subsection (d)(2)(A).

This section requires the Secretary, not later than 30 days after determining under the Endangered Species Act's five-year species status review process (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)(B)) that a listed species should be removed from the list or have its status changed, to initiate a rulemaking to implement that determination. (As background, the five-year review process evaluates whether endangered or threatened species (i.e., those protected from take and habitat impacts) continue to warrant their listing status.)

This section bars judicial review of the removal of a species from the endangered or threatened species lists published under ESA Section 4(c)(1) during the monitoring period established under Section 4(g)(1). (As background, Section 4(g)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires monitoring of species delisted due to recovery for at least five years, with authority for expedited relisting if a substantial risk of extinction arises.)

This section revises critical habitat designation requirements under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). (As background, critical habitat designation identifies geographical areas essential to the conservation of listed endangered or threatened species and requires federal agencies to consult on actions that may adversely affect it.) (1) It amends ESA Section 4(a)(3)(A) to authorize the Secretary to determine, based on the best scientific data available, that it is not prudent to designate critical habitat concurrently with listing a species (thus relieving the Secretary of the designation requirement) if designation would increase take or human activity; the species' threats are due to non-habitat factors (or factors not addressable via section 7 consultations); or the species occurs primarily outside U.S. jurisdiction with negligible U.S. conservation value. (2) It adds ESA Section 4(a)(3)(C), prohibiting critical habitat designation on privately owned or controlled land subject to a Secretary-approved land management plan (similar to Department of Defense integrated natural resources management plans under the Sikes Act) that is developed cooperatively (or submitted like a section 10 habitat conservation plan), promotes species population growth or maintenance, and minimizes or mitigates incidental take. (3) It amends ESA Section 4(b) to expand exclusion considerations in economic analyses, requiring the Secretary to weigh impacts on private landowners' species conservation efforts alongside national security and other factors; mandating consideration for exclusion of public-comment-submitted areas with credible economic, security, private conservation, or other impact information; and requiring draft and final economic and exclusion analyses at proposed and final rulemaking stages to address these impacts.

This section amends the data standards under ESA section 4(b) for species listing determinations—(1) to require the Secretary to take into account data submitted by a State, Tribal, or local government (in addition to specified conservation efforts by states and others) when reviewing species status; and (2) to require consideration of such data (as well as other information submitted during public comment periods). (Thus, these substate and Tribal data must inform decisions on whether species qualify as endangered or threatened and related critical habitat designations.)

This section provides that, under the Endangered Species Act, if the Secretary determines a species is an endangered or threatened species only in a significant portion of its range, the Secretary may list the species under subsection (c) solely with respect to that portion of its range. (As background, the Endangered Species Act requires the Secretary of the Interior—or the Secretary of Commerce for certain marine species—to list species as endangered or threatened by regulation if they meet any of five statutory factors, such as habitat destruction or overutilization, throughout all or a significant portion of their range; thus, this provision limits species-wide listings in cases involving only a significant portion.)

This section establishes criteria for delisting species from the Endangered Species Act's (ESA) lists of endangered and threatened species. Under new subsection (c)(4), following a review required by subsection (c)(2), the Secretary must remove a listed species—and may only determine that it should be removed—based on the best scientific and commercial data available if the species (A) is extinct, (B) is neither an endangered nor threatened species, or (C) is not a species.

This section requires the Secretary to publish online, on the applicable department's website, the best scientific and commercial data available that serves as the basis for each regulation—including proposed regulations—promulgated to list species as endangered or threatened under ESA section 4(a)(1) or to designate critical habitat under section 4(a)(3). It (1) authorizes a state Governor, agency, or legislature to request—and requires the Secretary to grant—an exemption for any such data prohibited from disclosure by state law (e.g., protecting personal information); (2) exempts global positioning system coordinates or other geographically specific species location information; and (3) directs the Secretary to execute, within 30 days of enactment, an agreement with the Secretary of War preventing disclosure of classified information pertaining to Department of War personnel, facilities, lands, or waters. (As background, ESA listings and critical habitat designations by the Secretary of the Interior—or the Secretary of Commerce for certain marine and anadromous species—trigger federal protections that restrict impacts on listed species and their habitats.)

This section requires the Secretary, as part of cooperating with states to the maximum extent practicable under section 6(a) of the Endangered Species Act, to provide affected states all data underlying a listing determination under ESA section 4(a) (i.e., endangered or threatened species status) prior to making such determination. (Thus, the provision adds decisional transparency to the existing requirement for state consultation before acquiring land or water for species conservation.)

This section requires the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, to submit to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works an annual report within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year detailing federal expenditures for covered suits under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and to maintain a publicly available, monthly-updated searchable online database of that information. The reports and database must include, for each covered suit, the case name and number with hyperlinks to key documents (e.g., settlements, consent decrees); claim descriptions; covered agencies and plaintiffs involved; agency funds expended (disaggregated by account) on notices, preparation, litigation, settlements, or assistance; full-time equivalent employees involved; judgment fund information under 31 U.S.C. §1304; and attorneys' fees or expenses awarded (disaggregated, regardless of nondisclosure provisions). Covered agencies include the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and specified power administrations, which must provide required data; covered suits are civil actions under the ESA against the federal government based on covered agency actions or related administrative fee awards under 5 U.S.C. §504. (Thus, the provision increases public transparency on federal litigation costs associated with ESA enforcement.)

This section revises the criteria and limitations for courts to award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to eligible parties in Endangered Species Act citizen suits (16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(4)). The revision authorizes such awards when appropriate, requires fees to be based on prevailing market rates, and imposes caps of $125 per hour (unless a higher rate is justified due to cost of living or a special factor, such as limited availability of qualified attorneys for the suit) and $200,000 total per suit. Eligible parties are defined as (1) individuals with a net worth of not more than $2 million; (2) owners of an unincorporated business, partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or organization (including tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations) with a net worth of not more than $7 million (including personal and business interests) and no more than 500 employees; or (3) cooperative associations as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)) (i.e., farmer associations operated for mutual benefit with one-member-one-vote requirements, limited dividends, and member business comprising at least 50% of total transactions). Parties are ineligible if they have sought fees under this provision in three or more instances during the 12-month period preceding the final order (including the current suit). For co-plaintiffs who are each individually eligible, eligibility is determined collectively.

This section requires the Secretary, concurrently with determining under the Endangered Species Act whether a species is endangered or threatened based on five statutory factors (i.e., habitat loss, overutilization, disease, inadequate regulation, or other threats), to prepare an analysis of (1) the economic effect, (2) the effects on national security, (3) the effects on human health and safety, and (4) any other relevant effect of such determination. The analysis must be prepared in coordination with impacted states, local governments, and Tribes but does not delay the determination or change its criteria.

This section requires the Secretary to notify the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works of any proposed critical habitat designation under ESA Section 4(a)(3)(A) for an area greater than 50,000 acres. (Critical habitat consists of specific areas occupied by endangered or threatened species or unoccupied areas essential to their conservation.) The notification must include (1) a description of the proposed area; (2) an inventory and evaluation of natural resource uses and values in the area and adjacent lands, plus the economic impact on individuals, local communities, and the United States; (3) identification of area users and effects on them; (4) analysis of conflicts between existing or potential uses and the designation, plus provisions for continuing or terminating such uses (including economic analysis); (5) a statement of consultations with federal agencies, state/local governments, and other stakeholders; and (6) a statement of effects on state and local government interests and the regional economy.

This section requires the Secretary to notify the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works of any proposed release of an experimental population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act that covers an area greater than 50,000 acres. (As background, section 10(j) authorizes the Secretary to designate certain reintroduced populations of endangered or threatened species as experimental, which allows regulatory flexibility to enhance species propagation or survival.) The notification must include (1) a description of the area; (2) an inventory and evaluation of natural resource uses and values in the area and adjacent public and nonpublic lands, plus the economic impact on individuals, local communities, and the United States; (3) identification of area users and their anticipated effects; (4) analysis of conflicts between the release and existing or potential natural resource uses, plus provisions and economic analysis for continuing or terminating such uses; (5) a statement of consultations with other federal departments and agencies, regional, state, and local governments, and appropriate individuals and groups; and (6) the release's effects, if any, on state and local government interests and the regional economy.

This section modifies the annual report on expenditures for conservation of endangered and threatened species required under the Endangered Species Act by (1) requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to make the report publicly available on data.gov in addition to submitting it to Congress, and (2) expanding the species-by-species accounting of federal expenditures to include those made with respect to experimental populations (i.e., populations designated under ESA section 10(j) for reintroduction and management separate from the species' existing range).

This section limits reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) in biological opinions under ESA Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)) by (1) prohibiting RPMs from proposing, recommending, or requiring a federal agency or applicant to mitigate or offset incidental take impacts; (2) authorizing surrogates—such as habitat or ecological functions—to quantify the amount or extent of such take; and (3) striking subparagraph (C) and clause (iii), which required monitoring of impacts and compliance, while making conforming amendments to punctuation, clause references, and redesignations. (As background, ESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with FWS or NMFS on actions that may affect listed species, with biological opinions specifying RPMs to minimize incidental take authorized by an incidental take statement.) (Thus, RPMs are confined to minimization without compensatory actions, potentially streamlining consultations but limiting tools to address broader project effects.)

This section establishes requirements for successive consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 for ongoing agency actions that previously adopted reasonable and prudent alternatives or measures to avoid jeopardizing listed endangered or threatened species. (As background, Section 7 consultations produce biological opinions prescribing such alternatives or measures to ensure agency actions do not jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat.) In any subsequent consultation occurring 10 years or more after the initial consultation, the Secretary must determine whether continuing those alternatives or measures will materially increase the likelihood of species recovery and reduce recovery time; if not, the agency must discontinue implementation notwithstanding the general Section 7(a)(2) no-jeopardy requirement. (Thus, long-term mitigation measures may be terminated if deemed ineffective for recovery.)

This section amends Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by adding paragraph (5), which limits the effects of a proposed agency action that the Secretary may consider in consultations under paragraph (2) (i.e., formal consultation to avoid jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification of critical habitat) or conferences under paragraph (4) (i.e., informal review of actions affecting proposed species or habitat). Specifically, the Secretary may only consider direct effects caused by the action itself that are reasonably certain to occur—based on clear and substantial information and the best scientific and commercial data available—and must treat any avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures proposed by the agency or applicant as beneficial effects. (Thus, effects are excluded if they are remote in time or geography, involve lengthy causal chains, exceed agency authority to prevent, would occur regardless, or lack supporting evidence from similar past actions, plans, unfulfilled requirements, or prior observations.) The section defines "effect of the action" and "effects of the action" as all consequences to listed species or critical habitat caused by the proposed action.

This section revises the biological opinion requirements at the conclusion of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) or (a)(3) consultations. (As background, ESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce to ensure agency actions are not likely to jeopardize listed endangered or threatened species or adversely modify their critical habitat.) Specifically, it requires the opinion to detail effects on the species or critical habitat within the area directly affected by the agency action—which may not be speculative or remote in time or distance—and to differentiate those effects from the environmental baseline; and, if jeopardy or adverse modification is found, to suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives that (I) would not violate ESA Section 7(a)(2), (II) can be implemented by the agency or applicant, (III) are economically and technologically feasible, and (IV) impose the fewest economic and other relevant costs on the applicant.

This section authorizes any person to obtain judicial review, under the Administrative Procedure Act (chapter 7 of title 5, U.S. Code), of any biological opinion issued by the Secretary under subsection (b) of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (i.e., an opinion on whether a federal agency action is likely to jeopardize listed endangered or threatened species or adversely modify their critical habitat). Such review must be sought by petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia within 150 days after the opinion is issued.

This section expands eligibility to apply for exemptions from Section 7 consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act (i.e., requirements that federal agency actions not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or adversely modify their critical habitat) to include not only federal agencies but also state Governors and permit or license applicants. (As background, Section 7 requires agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, which issues a biological opinion identifying any jeopardy and reasonable and prudent alternatives; exemptions are reviewed initially by the Secretary and granted or denied by the Endangered Species Committee.) It further broadens exemption grounds to include cases where a reasonable and prudent alternative necessary for compliance would impair national security or result in significant adverse national or regional economic impacts. Specifically, the section amends subsection (g) to (1) require the Secretary's exemption report to incorporate consultations with the National Security Council on security impacts and the Director of the National Economic Council on economic impacts; and (2) direct the Secretary to determine whether applicants fulfilled consultation duties in good faith and, if applicable, whether alternatives pose the new security or economic risks. It also revises subsection (h) to direct the Endangered Species Committee to grant exemptions if no reasonable and prudent alternatives exist or, for applications based on the new grounds, if alternatives pose the specified security or economic risks. (Thus, the changes facilitate exemptions for agency actions, state initiatives, or permitted projects facing such tradeoffs.)

This section revises the exception under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to import and export prohibitions by exempting non-native threatened or endangered fish or wildlife listed in Appendix I or II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) from separate ESA permit requirements or regulations. Such imports or exports are lawful if they satisfy all applicable CITES requirements and ESA Section 9(d), (e), and (f) (i.e., relating to inspections, marking or certification, and financial assurances for pre-Convention specimens, respectively).

This section revises Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit authority in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(A) to distinguish between native and non-native species. For native species, it retains authority to permit acts otherwise prohibited by ESA Section 9 (16 U.S.C. 1538) for scientific purposes or to enhance propagation or survival, including experimental populations. For non-native species, it authorizes permits for any otherwise prohibited act—including export/import, interstate/foreign commerce transport/shipment, or buying/selling—if the Secretary determines it is not detrimental to the species' survival. (As background, ESA Section 10 permits allow otherwise prohibited activities affecting listed species, subject to Secretary review typically by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service.) It defines "not detrimental to the survival of the species" as an act that (i) will not negatively affect the species' wild status, critical habitat, or recovery efforts; or (ii) involves certain registered captive wildlife activities under 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(g)(1). (Thus, this adopts a CITES-like standard for non-native species permits.)

This section revises the regulatory authority of the Secretary of the Interior under section 11(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by (1) redesignating the existing text as paragraph (1) and limiting its scope to enforcing that section—which authorizes civil and criminal penalties, forfeitures, and related enforcement mechanisms—and section 8 (from the entire Act), and (2) adding paragraph (2) to clarify that the subsection is not an independent source of authority to promulgate regulations enforcing any other provisions of the Act. (Thus, regulations implementing prohibitions on take or other protections under the Act must rely on other statutory authorities.)