Rewrites the Endangered Species Act of 1973 — and renames it the 'Endangered Species Recovery Act' — shifting the law's default toward recovery timelines and private-landowner incentives rather than litigation-driven enforcement. The Fish and Wildlife Service would have to publish a 5-year 'national work plan' ranking species by priority, set specific recovery goals that loosen protections as they are met, and publish economic impact analyses for every listing decision. New 'Conservation Benefit Agreements' would let private landowners, states, tribes, and counties pre-commit to conservation actions in exchange for a guarantee of no further restrictions if a species is later listed — and incidental-take permits would be exempted from NEPA environmental review. The bill also streamlines the Section 7 interagency consultation process (the backbone of federal project reviews near protected species), tightens what counts as an 'effect' the agency must consider, and adds a new exemption track for projects with national-security or significant-economic-impact rationale. Litigation cost awards in ESA citizen suits would be capped at $125 an hour and $200,000 per case, with eligibility narrowed to smaller plaintiffs — significantly shrinking who can afford to sue federal agencies to enforce the law. The bill gives resource industries that operate on land with listed species (oil, gas, mining, timber, and parts of agriculture and construction) substantial new regulatory relief; supporters say the package rebalances the ESA toward actual species recovery, while environmental groups warn the changes gut the core protections that saved species like the bald eagle and American alligator from extinction.
Environmental Concerns
- NEPA review for incidental-take permits — Removed for permits issued under ESA Section 10
- Section 7 consultation for habitat conservation plans — Removed for permits issued under Section 10(a)
- Critical-habitat eligibility on private land — Excluded where a qualifying land-management plan is in place
- Critical-habitat "not prudent" grounds — Expanded to include foreign-range and human-activity rationales
- Jeopardy analysis scope — Limited to effects "reasonably certain" with clear and substantial evidence
- Action-area scope in consultations — Excludes effects remote in time, distance, or causal chain
- Reasonable and prudent measures — Cannot require mitigation or offset of incidental take
- National-security and economic-impact exemption track — Added for projects under Section 7(g)
- State recovery-strategy authority — States may petition to substitute their own plan for federal protective regulation
- Conservation Benefit Agreements — Pre-listing agreements lock in no-additional-restrictions assurance for landowners
Corporate Benefits
- Federal-permit burden on resource industries — Reduced via NEPA, Section 7, and incidental-take streamlining
- Industry exemption pathway — Added for projects citing significant adverse national or regional economic impacts
- Mitigation obligations on permit holders — Eliminated as a basis for reasonable and prudent measures
Average Household Impact
- Citizen-suit attorney fee rate — Capped at $125 per hour under ESA litigation
- Citizen-suit fee award per case — Capped at $200,000 total in any single suit
- Citizen-suit eligibility — Narrowed to plaintiffs under $2M net worth or small organizations under $7M / 500 employees
- Repeat-plaintiff fee recovery — Barred for parties seeking fees in 3+ suits within a 12-month window
Transparency & Accountability
- Listing data disclosure — Underlying scientific data must be posted online for each listing and habitat designation
- ESA litigation expenditure reporting — Annual report and searchable database of federal litigation costs required
- Economic and national-security impact analysis — Required concurrent with each listing determination
- Congressional notification — Required for habitat designations and experimental-population releases over 50,000 acres
- 5-year review follow-through — Rulemaking must begin within 30 days of a status-change determination
Congressional Summary
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.
Legislative Subjects
Details
- Congress
- 119th
- Chamber
- House
- Status
- summarized
- Action
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1189 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4690, H. Res. 1182, H.R. 1897 and H.R. 5587. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4690, H. Res. 1182, H.R. 1897, and H.R. 5587 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate on each measure. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 4690, H.R. 1897, and H.R. 5587.
- Action Date
- 2026-04-20
- Date Added
- 2026-04-21
- Source
- Congress.gov →
Like reading a bill in plain English?
We're building an app that does this for every bill in Congress and lets you tell your reps how you want them to vote. We're a small team getting ready to launch, and we're trying to show investors that real people want this. Be one of them. Help us get it built. Leave your email and we'll tell you the moment the app is ready.