Governor Newsom signed California Assembly Bill (AB) 1319 on October 11, 2025. This new law establishes a process for the state to determine whether federal protections for an endangered or threatened California native species have been reduced, and if so, requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to report provisional candidacy determination—granting the species the same protections provided under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under AB 1319, these determinations are designed to be temporary—they are set to expire on December 31, 2031, and will be officially repealed on January 1, 2032. The law will only remain in effect past 2031 if state legislators vote to extend or make it permanent before the end date.
As you may recall, earlier this spring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) published a proposed rulemaking to rescind the existing definition of harm from the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Additionally, on June 27, 2025, the Services submitted a regulatory package to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (a division within the U.S. Office of Management and Budget) that modifies key rules of FESA governing the designation of critical habitat, the listing of protected species, and other core elements of the law.1 Details are limited because the Services have not yet published the proposed rule in the Federal Register. Further, there are currently over 100 different pieces of legislation in Congress that would amend FESA. With all these proposed changes, there is a lot in flux as it relates to the longstanding norms of species permitting under FESA.
The provisions of AB 1319 are triggered when federal legislative or regulatory actions reduce protection for a species that is already listed or is a candidate for listing under FESA as of January 1, 2025. Federal actions that would trigger AB 1319 and provisional listing at the state level include delisting a species, changing “take” prohibitions, or reducing mitigation requirements in such a way that the decrease would significantly affect the species within California. The CDFW criteria for determining state-level protections will likely be outlined in formal regulations to come, but based on what we know about CESA, we can assume the following factors are likely:
- Federal action specifics: CDFW will examine the particular federal action that reduces protections under FESA and analyze its implications.
- Species population data: Analysis may likely include current population trends, abundance, and the geographic distribution of the species within California.
- Threats to survival: CDFW may assess how reduced federal safeguards affect existing threats, such as habitat loss, disease, predation, and other anthropogenic factors.
- Ability to survive and reproduce: CDFW may evaluate how reduced federal protections influence the species’ ability to maintain its population and reproduce successfully in California.
- Efficacy of provisional candidacy: CDFW likely would determine that granting provisional candidate status under CESA could significantly reduce the substantial impacts caused by the federal action.
AB 1319 will affect projects by requiring compliance with state-level protections for certain species that are subject to a decrease in federal protection. There are many possible implications to the species permitting process in California from implementation of this new legislation:
Increased Workloads for Agency Staff
At ESA’s recent California Permitting Symposium, which brought together clients, permitting practitioners, and regulatory agency staff, we heard from our CDFW partners of the staffing pressures they face as a result of their existing workload. This new process of analyzing the need to add species to be considered under California’s permitting processes will be an added challenge from the perspective of agency staffing.
Necessary Research on Newly Listed Species.
The regulatory agencies need information about newly listed species (natural history, impacts to species recovery and conservation efforts, etc.) to support species permitting. The permitting process will rely on existing available information, and the continued evolution of this information will influence the way avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are developed and recommended to our clients.
Conservation Programs Can Serve as References
There is an opportunity to leverage existing Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) plans that provide guidance for impacts and mitigation for non-listed species that are covered under NCCPs, and to maximize take authorizations under NCCP plan documents and their corresponding Habitat Conservation Plan permits. A CDFW-approved Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS) is another vehicle to guide conservation and mitigation needs—ESA recently completed two RCIS programs: San Joaquin Valley and North Bay Baylands. In collaboration with CDFW, Mitigation Credit Agreements can be established within an approved RCIS boundary to create and sell mitigation credits for the target species, habitats, and sensitive resources covered in the RCIS.
Mitigation Bank Approvals
A permitting hurdle for many project applicants is finding mitigation banks with CDFW-approved species credits. An opportunity exists for banks that have federally listed species credits to be authorized as CDFW-approved mitigation banks should these species become protected under CESA. Otherwise for any newly listed state-listed species, compensatory mitigation credits are not likely to be available, and the need for fully mitigating any take of this species will fall on applicants to provide Habitat Mitigation Lands.
ESA is actively monitoring state and federal regulatory changes and is here to advise and support our clients as we adapt to changing processes and priorities. We have also developed this resource to share the latest species listing updates within California and other states. Do you have questions about your project and want to speak with an ESA permitting expert? Reach out to Barbra Calantas for more information, and be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for timely regulatory updates.
- When a federal agency sends a regulatory package to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, it is submitting a proposed or final rule for review before it can be published and implemented. This is an important step for federal regulations to provide centralized oversight to ensure consistency with the president’s priorities and assess a regulation’s impacts. ↩︎
