ESA Amendments Act of 2025
The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 is an introduced bill that would overhaul the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in several ways. Its core aims are to prioritize conservation actions through a formal listing work plan, expand incentives for private land conservation (notably via Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances), strengthen incentives to recover listed species, increase transparency and accountability, streamline the permit and consultation process, remove certain barriers to conservation, and reassert congressional intent in implementation. The package would also adjust several ESA definitions, set explicit funding authorizations for future years, and broaden the use of state and private land stewardship in conservation planning. If enacted, the bill could shift more responsibility and incentives toward private landowners and state partners while reducing some federal procedural barriers and expanding regulatory tools for species recovery. In practical terms, it would create a national listing work plan with a prioritized, five-year schedule for listing petitions and related determinations; expand and formalize private-land conservation agreements with assurances; exempt certain permits from NEPA and streamline certain consultations; broaden state-led recovery strategies; require more public, data-driven transparency around listings and expenditures; and adjust critical-habitat designation rules to favor certain private-land management plans and state cooperation. The net effect could be faster action on some conservation items, but with more private-sector involvement and more limited environmental review in certain circumstances.
Key Points
- 1Prioritization of listing petitions and determinations through a National Listing Work Plan
- 2- Establishes a five-year schedule for findings, listing determinations, and critical-habitat designations for “covered species.”
- 3- Assigns priority levels (Priority 1–5) to species and allows for time extensions in certain cases; the plan is updated with each federal budget request.
- 4- The priority assignment is not a final agency action and can be revised; emergency listing authority remains intact.
- 5Incentivizing wildlife conservation on private lands (Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances)
- 6- Agencies must consider the net conservation benefit of CCAs when making listing determinations.
- 7- New streamlined process (including programmatic CCAs) with defined approval timelines, monitoring, and assurances that private parties won’t face additional restrictions if a species is later listed.
- 8- CCAs can apply to private landowners, tribes, states, counties, and federal land users; includes programmatic models, public notice and comment, and confidentiality protections for certain information.
- 9Private-land conservation plans and mitigation integration
- 10- Conservation plans tied to permits would include terms and conditions that are legally binding, and federal agencies would adopt mitigation measures within related authorizations where practicable.
- 11- Permits issued under these provisions would be deemed exempt from additional NEPA review (see NEPA exemption below).
- 12NEPA exemption for incidental take permits and related streamlined permitting
- 13- Issuance of incidental take permits under certain ESA provisions would not be considered a major federal action under NEPA, accelerating the permitting process.
- 14- Related sections allow for the incorporation of permit-related mitigation into other federal authorizations and reduce duplicative federal review.
- 15Greater incentives to recover listed species
- 16- Protective regulations would be issued for threatened species with explicit, incremental recovery goals and a pathway for State management once goals are met.
- 17- Five-year status reviews would trigger a formal rulemaking within 30 days after a determination; removal from lists would be subject to a defined process during monitoring periods.
- 18Increased transparency and accountability
- 19- Listing and critical-habitat designations must be published with the basis on the internet, with exemptions for certain state-classified data and classified DoD information.
- 20- State, tribal, and local data and participation must be incorporated more actively in decisions.
- 21- A new, public-facing annual disclosure of expenditures related to ESA-listed litigation and related suits, including detailed accounting of funds, personnel, and attorneys’ fees, across named federal agencies.
- 22Streamlining and narrowing barriers in permitting
- 23- Clarifies and limits certain “reasonable and prudent measures” in consultations.
- 24- Allows successive consultations and clarifies what constitutes “jeopardy.”
- 25- Provides pathway to streamline or replace some federal processes with state or cooperative agreements.
- 26Designation of critical habitat and designation protections
- 27- Adds criteria to limit critical-habitat designations on privately owned or controlled land that is covered by parallel land-management plans or cooperative state programs, aiming to preserve private land stewardship efforts.
- 28- Requires consideration of the impacts on private landowners and private conservation efforts when designating critical habitat.
- 29Restoring congressional intent
- 30- Includes provisions intended to limit broad regulatory actions by agencies, reflecting a philosophy of tighter congressional oversight and more explicit statutory controls on agency rulemaking.
- 31Funding and definitions
- 32- The bill includes authorizations of appropriations for various ESA activities through fiscal years 2026–2031, with specified annual amounts for different sections (e.g., listing work plan activities, administrative and programmatic activities, and related conservation efforts).
- 33- Omnibus definitional updates to ESA terms (foreseeable future, conservation, habitat, best available data, environmental baseline) and alignment of certain terminology with the bill’s framework.