HR-9184-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Lauren Boebert (R-CO)
What it does
This bill would amend Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require the Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce, depending on the species) to accept and integrate data collected by state governments when making decisions to list or delist a species as threatened or endangered. It would not eliminate other data sources or change the existing listing criteria — it would add a mandatory obligation to incorporate state-level scientific data into the federal decision-making process.
Who benefits
State wildlife agencies whose data would gain formal standing in federal listing decisions. Landowners and industries (ranching, farming, timber, mining, energy development) in states where a species listing would restrict land use — states may collect data reflecting local population recovery that federal surveys miss. Rural communities economically dependent on land-use activities that ESA listings can restrict. Western states with large federal land footprints, where ESA listings have the greatest economic impact. Species that are locally recovering but listed based on range-wide data, which could be delisted more quickly.
Who is hurt
Environmental and conservation organizations that argue state agencies may face political or economic pressure to undercount species populations. Species that are locally abundant but range-wide threatened, if state data skews toward local conditions. Federal wildlife scientists whose methodologies currently dominate listing decisions. Researchers and advocates who rely on uniform federal data standards for consistency across jurisdictions. Potentially the listed species themselves, if integration of state data leads to premature delistings.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that state wildlife agencies often have the most granular, on-the-ground population data for species within their borders, and that excluding or underweighting this data produces listing decisions that do not reflect local ecological reality. They contend that states like Colorado and Utah have invested heavily in species monitoring programs, and that mandating integration of this data would produce more scientifically accurate outcomes — potentially accelerating delistings for species that have genuinely recovered in specific regions while ensuring listings reflect actual, current conditions rather than outdated federal surveys.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that state wildlife agencies operate under varying funding levels, methodological standards, and political environments, and that mandating integration of state data without quality controls could introduce inconsistency or bias into what is supposed to be a purely science-based federal process. They contend that states with strong economic interests in avoiding listings — such as those with significant ranching or energy sectors — may systematically collect or report data in ways that undercount at-risk populations, effectively allowing economic interests to influence decisions that the ESA requires be made solely on biological criteria.
Constitutional context
The Endangered Species Act rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), upheld broadly in prior decades but subject to heightened scrutiny post-Loper Bright (2024), which requires courts to independently assess whether agency interpretations of statutory mandates are correct rather than deferring to agency expertise. This bill does not raise a major questions doctrine concern because it narrows rather than expands agency discretion, but any implementing regulations defining how state data must be "integrated" could face independent judicial review under Loper Bright.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Interior/Commerce Secretaries) retains listing authority but would gain a new mandatory procedural obligation; Congress sets the requirement, and courts could review whether agencies have adequately integrated state data in any given listing decision.
Historical precedent
The ESA already requires the best available commercial and scientific data, and courts have previously reviewed whether agencies adequately considered state-submitted data, but no prior statute has explicitly mandated acceptance and integration of state-collected data as a distinct procedural requirement.