Key Takeaways
- •Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) noted a three percent species recovery rate, while Sen. Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) revealed a 25 percent staffing loss at the Fish and Wildlife Service.
- •Brian Yablonski (Chief Executive Officer, Property and Environmental Research Center) proposed using Section 4(d) rules as a "dimmer switch" to provide incremental regulatory relief as species meet recovery milestones.
- •Sen. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY) pressed Thomas E. Riley (Water Resources and Environmental Consultant, Riley Consulting LLC) on why federal agencies often ignore state-generated science during the species delisting process.
- •Republicans criticized the Endangered Species Act for creating regulatory uncertainty and "zombie listings," while Democrats emphasized the law's 99 percent success rate in preventing total species extinction.
- •Bipartisan interest in modernizing the Fish and Wildlife Service with AI tools suggests a shift toward faster permitting and incentivizing private landowners to lead local species recovery efforts.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Overview
The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water convened on March 18, 2026, to examine the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Chaired by Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), the hearing focused on the disparity between the ESA’s success in preventing extinctions and its perceived failure in recovering species to the point of delisting. Chairman Ricketts noted that while 99 percent of listed species have avoided extinction, only about 3 percent have been successfully delisted due to recovery. Ranking Member Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) countered that the law remains a historic success but is currently hamstrung by a severe staffing crisis and chronic underfunding.
Key Testimony
The witness testimony highlighted a divide between those advocating for regulatory streamlining and those emphasizing agency capacity. Thomas E. Riley, a consultant with Riley Consulting and former Director of the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR), emphasized the need for "working landscapes" where species recovery is balanced with agriculture and water infrastructure. He cited the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) as a premier model of state-federal collaboration. Brian Yablonski, CEO of the Property and Environmental Research Center (PERC), argued that the ESA relies too heavily on "sticks" rather than "carrots," suggesting that the law often turns endangered species into financial liabilities for private landowners. Jake Li, Vice President of Conservation Policy at Defenders of Wildlife, focused on the "staffing crisis" at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), noting that the agency has lost approximately 25 percent of its staff—including 530 biologists—since early 2025.
Overview
Policy discussions centered on several specific reforms. Sen. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY) discussed her legislation, S. 315, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act, which would transition management of recovered grizzly bear populations to state control. She also proposed renaming the law the "Endangered Species Recovery Act" to shift the focus toward delisting. Witnesses and senators discussed the "dimmer switch" approach to regulation, where landowners and states receive incremental regulatory relief as species hit specific recovery milestones, rather than waiting for full delisting. There was also significant discussion regarding the Section 4(d) rule; Republicans advocated for codifying the rescission of the "blanket rule" to allow for more tailored, species-specific protections that consider economic impacts.
The hearing identified several industries and sectors impacted by ESA implementation, including agriculture, municipal water supply, hydropower, and timber. Infrastructure developers were highlighted as being particularly affected by Section 7 consultations. Mr. Li promoted the FWS "Information for Planning and Consultation" (IPaC) system as a vital tool for streamlining these reviews through automation and potentially artificial intelligence.
Partisan Dynamics
The partisan dynamics revealed a shared goal of species recovery but disagreement on the means. Republicans, including Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Sen. Lummis, emphasized state-led management, local science, and the removal of regulatory hurdles. Democrats, led by Sen. Schiff and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), emphasized the moral imperative of preventing extinction and the necessity of robust federal funding. Sen. Whitehouse specifically criticized the "monetization" of nature, arguing for the intrinsic value of biodiversity.
Notable exchanges occurred regarding the use of "best available science." Mr. Riley criticized the FWS for occasionally disregarding local, applicant-provided data in favor of generic federal models, specifically citing a case involving water temperatures in the Platte River. Sen. Lummis highlighted "zombie listings," where species like the grizzly bear remain protected despite meeting original biological recovery goals. Mr. Yablonski noted that the Northern Continental Divide and Greater Yellowstone grizzly populations are being penalized for "too much success" because their expansion and intermingling led the FWS to reclassify them as a single, non-recovered unit.
Key Testimony
The following organizations were identified and discussed: - United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): The primary agency discussed; criticized for staffing losses, slow delisting processes, and data usage, but praised for its IPaC system. - Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP): Praised by Sen. Ricketts and Mr. Riley as a successful collaborative model for basin-wide species recovery. - Defenders of Wildlife: Represented by witness Jake Li; the organization provided data on FWS funding gaps and advocated for coexistence programs. - United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps): Discussed regarding its management of the Missouri River and the challenge of balancing flood control with habitat requirements for the pallid sturgeon. - Property and Environment Research Center (PERC): Represented by witness Brian Yablonski; advocated for market-based incentives and "conservation federalism." - Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR): Mentioned in the context of Mr. Riley’s former leadership and state-led water management. - United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW Committee): The parent committee overseeing the subcommittee hearing. - United States Department of the Interior (DOI): Criticized by Sen. Schiff for failing to respond to congressional inquiries regarding FWS staffing. - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC): Cited by Mr. Yablonski as a model for state-level wildlife management capacity. - United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Mentioned in relation to Mr. Li’s previous professional experience. - Center for Biological Diversity: Cited for its analysis of FWS biologist departures and funding requirements. - United States Department of Defense (DOD): Praised for its successful use of incremental regulatory flexibility on military installations. - United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Identified as agencies that could benefit from streamlined Section 7 consultation processes. - Riley Consulting: The firm represented by witness Thomas Riley. - United States National Guard: Recognized by Sen. Ricketts for assistance with Nebraska wildfires. - University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL): Mentioned as the institution where Mr. Riley lectures on water policy.
Overview
The hearing concluded with a call for more transparent data and a focus on proactive conservation under Section 7(a)(1) to prevent listings before they become necessary. Chairman Ricketts set a deadline of April 1, 2026, for additional questions for the record.
Transcript
All right, this subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife hearing entitled Challenges and Opportunities with Implementing the Endangered Species Act will come to order. I appreciate the witnesses being here and the ranking member Senator Schiff as well. Before we get started, I want to recognize that Nebraska is currently experiencing wildfires that are largest that we've had since statehood. The fires have impacted more than 750,000 acres of land in my state and that roughly equivalent that's over 1 percent approaching 2 percent of our total state land area. I want to extend my gratitude to and appreciation for the entire state to our brave first responders. We have firefighters from across Nebraska, then we have federal firefighters, we have the National Guard, we have neighbors from Iowa who are helping out. I appreciate everybody who is helping out with trying to control this fire. And certainly want to pray that for all those who are impacted by these terrible wildfires and will continue to ensure that these impacted communities know that we are there to support them and get them resources to be able to help them recover. As wildfires spread throughout the US, rebuilding communities is a big part of the aftermath. I am concerned that the Endangered Species Act as well as other environmental laws can hinder the recovery after a natural disaster. The Endangered Species Act enacted in 1973 was written to conserve, protect, and ultimately recover endangered species. However, after more than 50 years, the actual recovery metrics for species raises concerns about whether the law is achieving its goal. Since the ESA was enacted, 57 of the more than 1,700 listed species have been delisted. That means roughly 3 percent of the species ever listed as endangered or threatened have recovered. And the US Fish and Wildlife Service has reported that only 4 percent of the listed species are improving. A three or 4 percent success rate does not seem very good to me. The agency projected 300 species to recover by now, yet only 57 have met that benchmark. These numbers are concerning and raise concerns about whether the ESA is effectively delivering to recover species. The ultimate goal of the law is to recover species to the point that federal protections are no longer needed. Yet the available data suggests that the current framework has not consistently achieving that outcome. In many cases, the process has also created uncertainty that can delay or complicate infrastructure projects without creating significant recovery outcomes. In Nebraska, the list of species that we focus on include the pallid sturgeon, the whooping crane, the piping plover, the least tern, and the American burying beetle. Detecting, protecting, and recovering these species requires state-led conservation efforts and Nebraska is a great example of successfully implementing programs to do so. When I was governor of Nebraska, I led the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. This program is considered a major success story for its collaborative basin-wide efforts between Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming and the Department of the Interior to recover listed species in the river. It has successfully increased species populations, particularly the whooping crane, to historically high levels. However, this species still has not fully recovered. Overall, Nebraska's experience shows that conservation goals are most successful when implementation is collaborative, science-based, transparent, and predictable for all stakeholders involved. While all states represented on this committee have some local success stories, there are a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the implementation of the ESA. First, the focus should remain on recovery. The purpose of the ESA is not simply to list species but to recover them to the point where federal protections are no longer needed. Efforts have been made to improve clarity in ESA implementation. For example, US Fish and Wildlife Service during the administration during this administration took steps to provide additional regulatory clarity by rescinding the blanket rule and providing clearer definitions of habitat. Another critical issue is transparency and accountability from the Fish and Wildlife Service. In Nebraska, state agencies collect data that is used alongside federal information to inform listing and recovery decisions. State experts often have the boots on the ground and a direct understanding of the local species and habitats. Improving coordination, communication, and transparency among federal agencies, states, and other stakeholders should be an essential part of ESA's implementation moving forward. Programs like the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program demonstrate that collective conservation can work, but similar models have not been consistently applied elsewhere. Ultimately, the ESA has not consistently achieved its intended goal of recovering species and removing them from federal protection. And Congress needs to be at the forefront of these discussions and improve the law that has created more regulatory uncertainty than tangible success. I look forward to a discussion from our witnesses on the Endangered Species Act and what opportunities, challenges, and policy recommendations are needed to better support species recovery. And now I'll recognize the ranking member, Ranking Member Schiff, for his opening statement.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
