Overview
Title
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide for improved precision in the listing, delisting, and downlisting of endangered species and potentially endangered species.
ELI5 AI
In a new plan to help animals, this bill tries to be more careful when deciding if animals need extra protection because they are in danger. It wants to make sure that animals only get help if they really need it and checks every five years to make sure the animal list is correct.
Summary AI
The bill, known as the "Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act of 2025," aims to improve the accuracy of listing, delisting, and downlisting endangered or potentially endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to remove species from the endangered list if they have recovered or were erroneously listed. The bill also mandates an expanded review process every five years to include evaluations based on recovery plans, scientific errors, and the species' current status. Additionally, it provides procedures to correct wrongful entries on the endangered list, ensuring more precise assessments of species' status.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973, H.R. 106 aims to enhance the accuracy and clarity in listing, delisting, and adjusting the status of endangered and potentially endangered species. This legislation, known as the “Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act of 2025” or the “LIST Act of 2025,” introduces procedural refinements to the existing Act, focusing on criteria and processes for changing the status of species.
General Summary of the Bill
The LIST Act of 2025 seeks to modify the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by implementing more precise measures for listing, delisting, and downlisting species. Key provisions include requiring the Secretary to initiate procedures to remove a species from protection if recovery goals have been met or if the original listing was based on erroneous, inaccurate, or fraudulent information. Additionally, the bill calls for expanded considerations during regular five-year reviews of species' status, taking into account recovery plan criteria, possible errors in initial determinations, and current factors impacting species' survival.
Significant Issues
One major issue within the bill is the differential treatment of judicial reviews for decisions regarding species' listings. Under Section 2, Clause (E)(iv) and (E)(v), positive findings leading to delisting are not subject to judicial review, while negative ones are. This discrepancy raises concerns about fairness and transparency, as stakeholders may find it unjust to be unable to challenge certain decisions in court.
Another area of concern is the lack of precise definitions or guidelines, such as what constitutes "scientifically reasonable margins of error." This absence could lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications of the law, potentially undermining efforts to protect species effectively.
Furthermore, the bill imposes a ten-year ban on petition submissions by individuals found to have knowingly submitted false information. While intended as a deterrent against fraudulent activity, this punitive measure could be seen as excessively harsh, particularly if clear assessment standards are not established.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill may influence perceptions of environmental conservation policies and the integrity of species protection efforts. Greater precision in listing and delisting processes could enhance public trust in governmental and scientific decision-making. However, the complexity of the bill’s language and legal wording might limit public understanding and engagement, potentially hindering informed discourse on environmental issues.
Impact on Stakeholders
The bill could have varied impacts on specific stakeholders. Environmental organizations might view the amendments positively if they lead to more scientifically grounded policy decisions. However, concerns about limitations on judicial review could spark apprehension regarding accountability and legal recourse.
Alternatively, industries or developers who have previously faced hurdles due to species protection might welcome streamlined delisting procedures. Accurate data-driven decisions might allow for more predictable regulatory environments, potentially enhancing economic activities.
Conversely, individuals and groups concerned with preserving biodiversity may worry about the broader criteria for species status changes, fearing it might lead to premature or unjustified delistings, consequently affecting ecological balance and conservation success.
By clarifying and refining procedures, the LIST Act of 2025 could significantly influence the process of environmental protection, albeit not without raising pertinent questions and concerns among diverse groups engaged in conservation and development.
Issues
The amendment introduces differential treatment of judicial reviews for positive and negative findings under Section 2, Clause (E)(iv) and (E)(v). Positive findings are not subject to judicial review, while negative findings are. This discrepancy may lead to questions about fairness and transparency in the legal process, raising potential legal and ethical concerns.
The lack of a clear definition for 'scientifically reasonable margins of error' in Section 2, Clause (E)(ii)(I) could lead to varying interpretations. This ambiguity might result in inconsistent implementation and legal disputes, affecting the reliability and objectivity of decision-making regarding species' protection statuses.
Section 2, Clause (E)(vii) imposes a 10-year restriction on petition submissions by individuals who knowingly submit inaccurate information. While intended to deter fraudulent activity, this provision could be perceived as excessively punitive without clear guidelines on enforcement and assessment, potentially infringing on individuals' rights to participate in petition processes.
The amendment's language in Section 2 could be seen as complex and challenging, particularly for those not well-versed in legal or environmental policy, which might hinder public understanding and engagement with the bill.
Section 3 does not specify how to address situations where criteria under subsection (f)(1)(B)(ii) are not established. This lack of clarity could lead to ambiguity in determining changes in the status of a species, thereby affecting the effectiveness and consistency of conservation efforts.
The broad criteria for determining changes in the status of a species in Section 3 might lead to subjective interpretations. Without specific guidelines or thresholds, this could impact the precision and objectivity of the five-year review process for species statuses.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act of 2025", also known as the "LIST Act of 2025", is a bill that aims to improve the accuracy and clarity of how species are treated under the law.
2. Requirement to initiate delisting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the procedures for removing a species from the endangered species list. It requires the Secretary to delist a species if recovery goals are met or if there was a mistake in listing due to inaccurate or fraudulent information. Delistings based on mistakes cannot be challenged in court, while decisions against delisting can. There are penalties for knowingly submitting false information.
3. Expanded consideration during 5-year review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifies that during a 5-year review, each decision should consider criteria from the species' recovery plan, factors outlining if a species is endangered or threatened, findings of error in previous determinations, or whether the species no longer needs protection based on specific factors.