Sponsors
Ask me about this bill
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Makes several changes to how species are removed from the Endangered Species Act lists. It requires delisting when recovery-plan goals are met or a species is judged recovered, creates a fast 90-day review path to remove listings that were based on erroneous, fraudulent, or misrepresentative scientific or commercial information, and bars petitioners who knowingly submitted false information from filing for 10 years. It also narrows judicial review of certain findings of erroneous listings. Adds a new rule for five-year reviews that requires reviewers to base their conclusions on one of four specific findings: recovery-plan criteria, listing factors if no recovery criteria exist, a finding that the listing was in error, or that the species no longer meets listing standards.
Add new paragraph requiring the Secretary to initiate the procedures in subsection (a)(1) to remove a species from a list under subsection (c) if the recovery plan goals for the species developed under subsection (f) have been met.
Require the Secretary to initiate delisting procedures if recovery goals were not developed under subsection (f) but the Secretary determines the species has recovered sufficiently to no longer require protection under the Act.
Require removal from the lists when the Department of the Interior has produced or received substantial scientific or commercial information demonstrating the species is recovered or recovery goals have been met, notwithstanding the usual requirement in subsection (c)(2) that determinations follow subsections (a) and (b).
Specify that for a species removed under the new recovery-based provision, the publication and notice required by subsection (b)(5) shall consist solely of a notice of the removal.
Add a new subparagraph requiring that not later than 90 days after the Department of the Interior receives or produces certain information regarding a listed species, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, determine whether the species’ inclusion on the list was less likely to have occurred in the absence of that information.
Who is affected and how:
Endangered and threatened species: The law makes delisting dependent on meeting recovery-plan benchmarks or equivalent determinations, and creates a faster route to remove listings that were based on bad information. This can speed delisting in some cases and make delistings harder to reverse if judicial review is narrowed.
Federal agencies (Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA where applicable): Must adopt new procedures, run expedited 90-day reviews when erroneous-listing claims are raised, document findings in five-year reviews according to the four enumerated paths, and implement tracking/enforcement for the 10-year petition ban. That requires new legal, investigative, and administrative work.
Conservation and environmental organizations: Likely to be affected as frequent petitioners and scientific contributors. The bill raises the stakes for petitions and the evidence used to support listings; organizations may face greater scrutiny and legal exposure if submissions are later judged knowingly false.
Scientific researchers and consultants: Increased procedural reliance on recovery-plan criteria means scientific evidence will be evaluated against those benchmarks. Contributors could face sanctions if paperwork is judged intentionally misleading, which may change how studies are framed, reviewed, and submitted.
Private landowners, industries, and local stakeholders: Faster delisting for listings found to be based on erroneous information could reduce long-term regulatory constraints tied to species listings. Conversely, the greater finality of agency error-findings and narrowed judicial review may reduce avenues to challenge delistings that stakeholders oppose.
Courts and litigants: Narrower judicial-review provisions reduce some judicial remedies for plaintiffs seeking to challenge agency determinations that a listing was erroneous. That changes litigation strategy for environmental groups and affected parties.
Net effects and tradeoffs:
Adds a new paragraph (9) to subsection (b) requiring the Secretary to initiate delisting procedures when recovery-plan goals have been met or the Secretary determines a species has recovered without such goals, and allowing removal when the Department of the Interior has produced or received substantial scientific or commercial information demonstrating recovery; also specifies that the publication/notice under subsection (b)(5) for such removals shall consist solely of a notice of removal.
Adds a new subparagraph (E) to subsection (b)(3) requiring a finding within 90 days after the Department receives or produces certain information showing a listing was based on inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresentative scientific or commercial information; requires removal and Federal Register notice for positive findings; makes positive findings not subject to judicial review and negative findings subject to judicial review; specifies publication for removals shall consist solely of a notice of removal; and bars certain petitioners from being 'interested persons' for 10 years if they knowingly submitted such information.
Adds a new paragraph (3) to subsection (c) requiring that each determination made under paragraph (2)(B) must consider one of four specified bases: (A) the recovery-plan criteria required under subsection (f)(1)(B); (B) if objective measurable criteria under subsection (f)(1)(B)(ii) are not established, the listing factors in subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1); (C) a finding of error in the prior determination; or (D) a determination that the species is no longer endangered or threatened or in danger of extinction based on analysis of the factors in subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1).
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced January 3, 2025 by Andrew S. Biggs · Last progress January 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House