H.R. 1897
ESA Amendments Act of 2025
Sponsor: Bruce Westerman
26 cosponsors
- Michael A. Rulli
- Andy Biggs
- Celeste Maloy
- Cliff Bentz
- Dan Newhouse
- Doug LaMalfa
- Harriet M. Hageman
- Jeff Hurd
- Mark E. Amodei
- Mike Ezell
- Nicholas J. Begich III
- Paul A. Gosar
- Pete Stauber
- Russ Fulcher
- Thomas P. Tiffany
- Wesley Hunt
- Troy Downing
- Addison P. McDowell
- Lauren Boebert
- Glenn Thompson
- Ken Calvert
- Mike Collins
- Clay Higgins
- Tim Walberg
- Glenn Grothman
- Robert E. Latta
Official summary
Written by the Congressional Research Service.
ESA Amendments Act of 2025
This bill reauthorizes through FY2031 the Endangered Species Act and generally narrows protections provided under the act.
The bill directs the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to submit a National Listing Work Plan that establishes a five-year schedule and plan for addressing listing of endangered or threatened species and designation of critical habitats for such species. Under the plan, the bill gives the Services flexibility on the timing of acting on listing petitions and eliminates the requirement for the Services to act within 12 months on listing petitions.
The bill limits what land may be designated as critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species.
It also limits protections provided to threatened species and allows a state to regulate the recovery of such species if the Services determine the state's proposed recovery strategy would conserve the species.
The bill provides statutory authority for Conservation Benefit Agreements, which allow private landowners to voluntarily enter agreements to reduce threats to candidate species in exchange for being allowed to continue their operations if the species is later listed.
The bill also modifies the permitting process for certain other voluntary conservation agreements, including by exempting incidental take permits (e.g., permits to harm or kill a species) from environmental review requirements.
The bill also makes a variety of other changes to the act, including limiting consultation requirements, judicial review, and awards for attorneys’ fees in certain cases.
Text of the bill
I Optimizing conservation through resource prioritization
II Incentivizing wildlife conservation on private lands
III Providing for greater incentives to recover listed species
IV Creating greater transparency and accountability in recovering listed species
V Streamlining permitting process
Where this section came from
Not in the first version (Introduced in House, Mar 6).
-
Mar 24, 2026 · Reported in House Marked up by House Committee on Natural Resources, Dec 17 Reported by House Committee on Natural Resources, Mar 24 Committee members' individual votes aren't in our records.
What is a markup?
A markup is a committee meeting where members go through a bill and vote on changes before sending it to the full chamber.
Section 7(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
(A)
(i) Promptly after conclusion of consultation under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide to the Federal agency and the applicant, if any, a written statement setting forth the Secretary’s opinion, and a summary of the information on which the opinion is based, detailing how the agency action affects the species or its critical habitat within the area directly affected by the agency action, which such area may not be speculative or remote in time or distance from the agency action. In so doing, the Secretary shall differentiate the effects of the agency action from the environmental baseline.
(ii) If jeopardy or adverse modification is found, the Secretary, in cooperation and consultation with the Federal agency and applicant, if any, shall consider a range of reasonable and prudent alternatives and suggest from among that range those reasonable and prudent alternatives which the Secretary believes—
(I) would not violate subsection (a)(2);
(II) can be taken by the Federal agency or applicant, if any, in implementing the agency action;
(III) are economically and technologically feasible for the Federal agency and applicant, if any, to implement; and
(IV) impose the fewest economic and other relevant costs for the applicant, if any.
VI Eliminating barriers to conservation
VII Restoring congressional intent