The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife recently discussed the challenges and opportunities in implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), with lawmakers and witnesses largely agreeing that recovery should be the law’s main goal.
Throughout the hearing, several common themes emerged: the need for greater transparency, improved use of state-collected data, stronger incentives for recovery, and adequate resources for agencies to carry out the law.
Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) opened the hearing by highlighting concerns about the ESA’s performance over its 50-year history, noting that only a small percentage of listed species have been delisted due to recovery.
“The ultimate goal of the law is to recover species to the point that federal protections are no longer needed,” he said, adding that current outcomes raise questions about whether that goal is consistently being achieved.
Ranking Member Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) countered that the ESA has been highly effective at preventing extinction, pointing to the survival of 99% of listed species. Schiff also acknowledged that there is bipartisan interest in improving recovery rates and updating how the law is carried out, including working more closely with states and cutting through some of the regulatory red tape.
Recovery vs. regulation
Much of the hearing centered on whether the ESA’s structure limits its effectiveness in driving recovery.
Brian Yablonski, CEO of the Property and Environment Research Center, described the ESA as a “tale of two cities,” saying it has been successful at preventing extinction but has fallen short when it comes to recovering most species. He emphasized that incentives for private landowners, who manage habitat for about two-thirds of at-risk species, are essential.
“When people benefit from stewardship, they will do more of it,” Yablonski said, calling for policies that reward incremental recovery progress.
Jake Li, vice president of Conservation Policy at Defenders of Wildlife, agreed that flexibility tools already exist within the ESA, such as Section 7 consultations and habitat conservation plans, but said they are underutilized. He emphasized that recovery could be accelerated with better funding and staffing at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
“The service absolutely needs the capacity to do this work,” Li said, noting recent staffing losses have stretched the agency thin. Li previously served as assistant director of USFWS’ Ecological Services program, overseeing ESA work.
Witnesses also emphasized the importance of using localized, state-generated data in ESA decision-making.
Thomas Riley of Riley Consulting LLC pointed to instances in which federal agencies relied on generalized or non-local data rather than site-specific science, leading to flawed outcomes. In one example, he said a federal biological opinion disregarded local data on river temperatures, resulting in unintended ecological harm.
“There needs to be transparency and trust that local science is used in the decision-making process and not dismissed,” Riley said.
That concern aligns with newly introduced legislation from Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), the Local Data for Better Conservation Act. The bill would require federal agencies to use data gathered by state wildlife agencies when making ESA listing and delisting decisions, reinforcing the idea that the “best available science” should include on-the-ground expertise from the states.
Wolves, grizzlies show tensions
High-profile species such as gray wolves and grizzly bears illustrated the broader tensions between recovery, management and regulatory certainty.
Lawmakers described growing wolf populations and increasing conflicts with livestock producers, while witnesses cited successful recovery metrics. Yablonski noted that wolf populations have grown from roughly 1,000 animals to about 6,000 nationwide, and called the species a “recovery success story.”
Grizzly bears drew similar debate, as populations have recovered in places like the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Still, delisting keeps getting delayed, often by lawsuits. Yablonski warned that shifting criteria as bears expand can erode trust.
“We were told if this distinct population segment reached recovery, it could be delisted,” he said. “Now the rules are changing.”
Lummis echoed those frustrations, describing grizzlies as a “zombie listing” that remains on the ESA despite exceeding recovery targets.
Witnesses also touched on the difficulty of balancing ESA protections with infrastructure and land use. Riley said managing the law in western water systems often comes down to juggling flood control, agriculture and habitat needs at the same time. He added that conservation efforts must fit within today’s working landscapes, rather than attempt to recreate conditions that no longer exist.
Similarly, Li pointed to emerging tools such as conservation banking and digital platforms like USFWS’ IPaC system, which streamlines project reviews and could be expanded using artificial intelligence.
Beyond Lummis’ bill, broader ESA reform efforts are gaining traction, including Rep. Bruce Westerman’s (R-AR-04) ESA Amendments Act of 2025, which would shift more authority to state, local and tribal governments while curbing litigation from environmental groups. He argued that current red tape hinders land management, infrastructure and economic balance. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
