Background
Today, Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) introduced the bipartisan Improving Species Recovery Act, which would improve incentives for voluntary conservation and recovery progress under the Endangered Species Act. The bill includes several ideas developed by PERC research and PERC is proud to support its introduction.
More than 50 years after the ESA’s passage, the statute has succeeded in one important respect—99 percent of listed species have avoided extinction. But recovery, the ESA’s ultimate goal, has lagged far behind. Just 3 percent of listed species have recovered. And, according to PERC research, 96% of the recoveries federal agencies predicted have not happened. The sobering recovery numbers are a call to action for reforms to make the law work better.
A Senate Hearing Lays the Groundwork for Collaboration
In March, PERC CEO Brian Yablonski testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife alongside Jake Li from Defenders of Wildlife and Thomas Riley, the former director of the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. The hearing highlighted opportunities to improve the ESA by embracing measurable recovery goals, regulatory relief as a reward for recovery progress, voluntary conservation, greater transparency in recovery planning, and better use of technology.
As Yablonski told the subcommittee, “conservation works when it’s done with people, not to them.” We need “to do a better job of rewarding recovery progress” because “delisting has been too rare, taken too long, and been too fraught with conflict for this to be a reliable incentive.” What’s missing are “more consistent and reliable incentives for recovery efforts.”
Defenders’ testimony struck a similar theme, proposing that regulatory flexibility shouldn’t be an “on/off switch” but “a dimmer switch that adjusts as a species shows recovery progress . . . Given that most listed species are nowhere close to delisting, this alternative approach creates far timelier incentives for landowners to conserve species.”
Landowner incentives matter because two-thirds of federally listed species depend on private land for habitat. If landowners see a listed species only as a source of restrictions, the ESA can alienate the very partners whose cooperation is essential to recovery.
A Bill to Reward Recovery Progress with Regulatory Relief
The Improving Species Recovery Act builds directly on those ideas. Among other reforms, it would introduce incremental “conservation milestones” and tie them to regulatory and permitting flexibility. As a threatened species improves and reaches measurable benchmarks, for instance, rules tailored to that species would adjust to reward states and landowners, incentivising incremental recovery along the path to eventual delisting.
Currently, the strongest incentives to work towards species recovery are only realized when a species is fully recovered and delisted. Given that some species require decades of active conservation efforts, such a distant promise of regulatory relief offers only a diluted incentive for many landowners. The bill would bridge this gap by pairing earlier recovery progress with measured and proportionate regulatory flexibility.
- Adds milestones to recovery plans. Recovery plans would identify measurable conservation milestones tracking progress toward the point at which a species no longer qualifies as endangered or threatened.
- Links milestones to Section 4(d) rules. Every species faces different threats, so recovery requires species-specific solutions. Section 4(d) allows the Service to tailor regulations for threatened species; under the bill, those rules would use recovery-plan milestones as triggers for greater flexibility. As a species improves, restrictions could ease, rewarding landowners, states, and other partners for contributing to its recovery.
- Authorize similar flexibility for federal agencies and permittees as a reward for recovery progress. The Service would be allowed to incorporate milestones into consultations and permits as a trigger for increased flexibility for federal land managers and permittees that contribute to recovery progress.
The result would be a species-specific off-ramp for threatened species. Instead of waiting until delisting to recognize success, the regulatory framework could adjust incrementally as biological risk declines. States, landowners, and other conservation partners would have defined benchmarks to work toward and a tangible reward for achieving them.
Support for voluntary conservation before species are listed and after they recover
Landowners and states may hesitate to undertake voluntary conservation when they do not know how the Service will evaluate their efforts in listing or delisting decisions. The bill would provide clearer standards at both ends of the ESA process.
- Sets clearer targets before listing. If the Secretary determines that doing so would encourage voluntary conservation, the Service must establish science-based demographic and threat-reduction standards before deciding whether to list a species. Those standards would give conservation partners a clearer understanding of what must be achieved for the species not to require federal recovery efforts.
- Clarifies how voluntary conservation will be evaluated at delisting. Within three years, the Secretary must issue regulations explaining how voluntary actions will be considered in delisting decisions, including whether they are durable, will continue after delisting, and will conserve the species into the foreseeable future. The regulations must also address coordination with states, private landowners, and others after federal regulations are eased.
Increased transparency in recovery progress
Recovery cannot be measured without a clear starting point or consistent information about what has changed. The bill would establish a baseline when a species is listed and make subsequent recovery progress easier to track.
- Expands public reporting on recovery progress. At least once every three years, the Secretary would report to Congress on recovery-plan development and recovery progress. The reports would include regular updates on progress toward mitigating threats to species, whether species are improving, voluntary conservation efforts, and data gaps.
Harnessing technology for faster permitting
Before a federal agency takes an action that may affect a listed species or its habitat, Section 7 requires it to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. Because these consultations can be slow, even for routine actions, the bill would expand digital tools to process them more efficiently without changing the ESA’s substantive requirements.
- Expands digital consultation tools. The bill would expand IPaC and its automated tools so routine consultations can be completed more quickly. It would also identify other ESA reviews that technology or artificial intelligence could streamline without changing the law’s requirements.
