Thoughts on the ESA Amendments Act of 2025
Congress is proposing changes to the Endangered Species Act. They’re not all bad. I highlight amendments that are common sense and could help incentivize voluntary restoration and protection of listed species, along with one important change we’d like to see.
OK, can I level with you? I’ve spent multiple days reviewing the ESA Amendments Act of 2025 (H.R. 1897), and I’m still not done! Maybe it’s because I’m such a research nerd that I have to look at every edit and contrast it with recommendations EPIC has made in the past. Or maybe it’s just that there are a lot of details thrown into this Act. So a big caveat is that I’m just providing the first slice of commentary. More to come.
What I’d Like to See Changed
I would like to see the Act retain mitigation as a permit streamlining measure and as an incentive to private sector restoration and protection of listed species in advance of impacts. Specifically, we hope Congress removes “and that do not propose, recommend, or require the Federal agency or the applicant concerned, if any,” in Title V, Sec. V1(1), and replaces it with “, including, as a voluntary option, mitigation to offset such impact.”
What I Support
Changes that remove permitting barriers and disincentives for voluntary restoration and protection of listed species:
The entire newly proposed Section 10(k) codifying the USFWS rule on voluntary conservation - we particularly appreciate “Exemption from consultation requirement.—An Agreement approved under this subsection shall be deemed to have been granted an exemption under section 7(h) for the purposes of that section.”
Similar text added to Section 10(a) [for Habitat Conservation Plans]: “(3) A permit issued by the Secretary under this subsection shall be deemed to have been granted an exemption under section 7(h) for the purposes of that section.”
“(4) The issuance of a permit under paragraph [10 (a)](2) shall not be considered a major Federal action under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).” [Exempts voluntary conservation agreements from NEPA]
[4(b)(1)] “(C) In making a determination under subsection (a)(1) with respect to a species, the Secretary shall take into account and document the effect of any net conservation benefit (as that term is defined in subsection (k) of section 10) of any Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances or any programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (as those terms are defined in that subsection) relating to such species.”
Note on terminology: Throughout the Act, I’d suggest editing the term “Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances” to the term used in the USFWS May 2024 rule - “Conservation Benefit Agreement”
Coming up next: We’ll be back later with additional thoughts on this proposed legislation.
