United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries,

Wildlife and Water, Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, United

States Senate

ENDANGERED SPECIES

ACT 

For Release on Delivery 

9:30am Thursday May 19, 2005 

Successes and Challenges 

in Agency Collaboration 

and the Use of Scientific 

Information in the 

Decision Making Process 

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-05-732T
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 19, 2005

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Successes and Challenges in Agency 

Collaboration and the Use of Scientific

Information in the Decision Making

Process 

Highlights of GAO-05-732T, a report to the

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and 

Water, Committee on Environment and 

Public Works, United States Senate 

The purpose of the Endangered

Species Act is to conserve 

endangered and threatened species 

and the ecosystems upon which 

they depend. This law currently

protects more than 1,260 animal

and plant species. Within the 

Department of the Interior, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service implements 

and enforces the act. In addition,

all federal agencies, such as the 

Department of Defense and the

Bureau of Land Management, must 

ensure that their activities do not

jeopardize a protected species’

continued existence or adversely

modify or destroy habitat that has 

been designated as critical to its 

survival. 

The Endangered Species Act and

its implementation can be

controversial when there are 

conflicting uses for a natural 

resource as, for example, when

timber on federal lands is both

habitat for endangered and 

threatened species and a valuable

commodity to be harvested. 

Conflicts also occur over the 

adequacy or interpretation of

scientific information in making

species protection decisions. 

GAO has issued numerous reports

on the implementation of the

Endangered Species Act. This

testimony is based primarily on 

four of these reports and addresses 

(1) collaboration among federal 

agencies to conserve threatened

and endangered species and (2)

utilization of scientific information 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We have found that effective agency collaboration can reduce conflict over 

competing uses of natural resources and improve agencies’ abilities to 

protect species while carrying out other mission-related activities. While we 

have noted several instances of effective interagency cooperation, we have

also discovered that agencies could be doing more to work together to find

effective species protections. For example, at one military facility, Air Force 

officials worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service and others to entice the

endangered Sonoran pronghorn—a species similar in appearance to 

antelope—away from military training areas. As a result, the agencies were 

able to minimize the impact of species protections on training exercises. 

Previously, Air Force officials had reported that 32 percent of their live-fire 

missions were either cancelled or moved due to the presence of the 

pronghorn. However, we have found that there are obstacles to further 

agency collaboration that need to be addressed.

We have found that the Fish and Wildlife Service generally used the best 

available information in key endangered species decisions, although the 

agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species 

management decisions. For example, since the Bureau of Land Management 

eliminated sheep grazing on more than 800,000 acres in tortoise habitat in

California, neither the Bureau or the Fish and Wildlife Service had ensured 

that necessary research was conducted to assess whether this action had 

benefited the tortoise. Unless managers link research findings to recovery 

actions, they cannot develop a scientific basis to make decisions about 

whether land use restrictions—such as limiting grazing or other activities in

tortoise habitat—should remain unchanged, be strengthened, or whether 

alternative actions are more appropriate. Developing such information is

important as some of the restrictions imposed to protect the tortoise have

been controversial because of their broad impact and some affected by the 

restrictions have questioned whether they are necessary for the tortoise’s 

recovery. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-732T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

1

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work related to the Endangered Species Act. 

As you know, the purpose of the act is to conserve endangered and threatened species 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend. This law currently protects more than 

1,260 animal and plant species. Under the act, no one may “take” a protected species, 

which is defined as harming, harassing, pursuing, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, 

hunting, capturing, or collecting, or attempting any such conduct. In addition, federal 

agencies and federally authorized activities may not jeopardize a species’ continued 

existence or adversely modify habitat deemed critical for a species’ survival. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)—

collectively referred to as the Services—are responsible for working with other federal 

agencies, tribal, state, and local governments, private companies, and citizens to ensure 

that species are appropriately protected. In addition, all federal agencies are directed by 

the act to utilize their authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species. 

The act requires FWS and NMFS to list as endangered any species facing extinction and 

to list as threatened any species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

When a species is listed, the act also generally requires the agencies to designate critical 

habitat—habitat essential to a species’ conservation—because the loss of habitat is often 

the principal cause of species decline. FWS and NMFS are also required to develop a 

plan to recover the listed species to the point that they are no longer endangered or 

threatened, an achievement marked by their removal, or delisting, from the list of 

endangered or threatened species. 

The act’s success in protecting species depends on one’s point of view. Some believe it 

has been successful because in the face of chronic underfunding only 9 species have 

gone extinct since the act’s inception, others say it has been a failure because only 9 

species have been recovered. Advocates on both sides of the argument would likely 

agree, however, that the Endangered Species Act and its implementation have served as 

lightning rods in the ongoing national debate concerning the tradeoffs that must often be 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

2

made between economic, social, and environmental values. The tradeoffs required to 

implement the act were vividly apparent in 1978, when the Supreme Court ruled that 

construction of the Tellico Dam could not be completed because doing so would 

jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered snail darter—a species of fish.1 

The dam, which has since been completed,2 is located on the Little Tennessee River and 

provides flood control, hydropower, and water supply. In this case, the Court ruled that 

the Endangered Species Act explicitly prohibits activities that would jeopardize the 

continued existence of an endangered species or result in the destruction or 

modification of its habitat, and stated that the act represents a congressional decision to 

require agencies to give greater priority to the protection of endangered species than to 

their other missions. Under the Court’s decision, federal agencies generally are 

prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions, such as dam construction, 

permitting timber harvesting and livestock grazing, and wetland dredging, if doing so 

would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 

destroy or adversely modify their critical habitats. 

The legacy of this decision continues to this day as federal agencies struggle to balance 

their obligation to protect species and carry out other mission-related activities that 

often involve ensuring industries, ranchers, farmers, recreational enthusiasts, tourists, 

and others, appropriate access to and use of the very natural resources on which those 

species depend. One prominent recent example is the federally-operated Klamath 

Project—dams, reservoirs, and associated facilities—that sits on the California-Oregon 

border. Here, under extreme drought conditions, several federal agencies—including the 

Services and the Bureau of Reclamation—are trying to balance the water needs of 

irrigators and others who receive water from the project, and threatened and endangered 

fish, which must have sufficient water to survive. In 2002, thousands of fish died while 

water was delivered for agricultural irrigation; the prior year, farmers experienced crop 

losses while water was used to maintain stream flows for fish.3

 Another prominent 

 

1

Tenn.Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978). 2

 Legislation, passed in 1979, allowed for completion of the Tellico Dam. 3

 For a more comprehensive assessment of the status of the nation’s freshwater supply see U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Freshwater Supply: States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the 

Challenges of Expected Shortages, GAO-03-514 (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2003). 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

3

example involved the threatened Northern spotted owl. In the early 1990s, timber sales 

on federal lands that are habitat for the Northern spotted owl were brought to a virtual 

halt by federal court injunctions. In various rulings, the federal courts enjoined the 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management from selling timber until they addressed 

issues related to protecting the habitat of the owl.4 

More recently, controversies surrounding the act have centered on the adequacy of the 

scientific information used to make decisions about whether and how to list species. 

Just in the past few months sparks have flown in response to scientific decisions 

concerning the Florida panther, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, and the greater 

sage grouse. In the first case, FWS conceded weaknesses in the data used to craft some 

of its plans to protect the endangered panther. While critics of FWS claim the agency’s 

use of faulty information was politically motivated, FWS officials defend it as an honest 

mistake made in the context of an ever-evolving body of knowledge. In the case of the 

Preble’s mouse, FWS announced in January 2005 that it will propose removing the mouse 

from the endangered species list because new research indicates that it is genetically not 

a separate subspecies of meadow jumping mouse as previously thought. Critics of the 

act cite this as evidence that the act does not require sufficient scientific evidence before 

a species is listed. Finally, FWS also recently announced that it will not place the sage 

grouse on the endangered species list. Critics of the decision are concerned that politics 

interfered with a scientifically justified decision to list the species. FWS claims that the 

decision was the result of an extensive review of scientific data and analysis. 

While there are no simple answers to the conflicts and controversies surrounding the act, 

we believe that the federal agencies responsible for managing endangered species and 

their habitats can be more effective in how they manage these conflicts or potentially 

avoid conflicts altogether. We have issued more than 15 reports in the past 10 years 

addressing how the Endangered Species Act is being implemented. (These reports are 

listed in Appendix I along with other GAO reports that discuss the effect of the act on 

 

4

 For a fuller account of this controversy and efforts to resolve it, see U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin Plans Demonstrate 

Improvements in Land-Use Planning, GAO/RCED-99-64 (Washington, D.C.: May 26, 1999). 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

4

other programs). Today, I am going to discuss our work on two of the major issues 

currently being debated concerning the Endangered Species Act—the difficulty of 

balancing species needs with other resource uses and the use of science in implementing 

the act. Specifically, this testimony addresses (1) collaboration among federal agencies 

to conserve threatened and endangered species and (2) utilization of scientific 

information by FWS in key Endangered Species Act decisions. 

 

This testimony is based primarily on four previously issued reports. In general, we did 

not perform additional audit work in preparing this testimony. We made 

recommendations in these four reports and have updated the status of agencies’ efforts 

to implement our recommendations. Our work was conducted in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Summary 

In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve collaboration as 

a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between species protections and other 

resource uses, but that more could be done to promote routine use of collaboration and 

clarify agencies’ responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003, 

we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to coordinate with 

other federal land managers in order to reduce the impact of species protections on 

military activities. We found several cases where such efforts were successful. For 

example, at the Barry M. Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with 

officials at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the 

endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training areas. As a 

result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of restrictions on training missions 

due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, such cases were few and far between 

because, among other things, there were no procedures or centralized information 

sources for facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on collaboration 

that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act—referred to as the consultation 

process—in the Pacific Northwest. In this area, large numbers of protected species and 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

5

vast amounts of federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource 

use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other federal agencies 

had taken made the consultation process run smoother and contributed to improved 

interagency relationships. However, some problems have persisted. For example, some 

agencies disagree with the Services about when consultation is necessary and how much 

analysis is required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each of 

these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve collaboration 

among federal agencies with regard to balancing species protections and other resource 

uses, and—in the March 2004 report—to resolve disagreements about the consultations 

process. DOD and FWS have begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve 

collaboration regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and 

development of a training program. With regard to the consultation process, while FWS 

and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand their collaboration processes, the 

agencies did not believe that disagreements about the consultation process require 

additional steps. They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to address 

questions about the process. 

With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally used the best 

available information in key Endangered Species Act decisions, although the agency was 

not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. In 

addition, we identified concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make 

critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many aspects of the 

decision making for species protections regarding the Mojave Desert tortoise. We found 

that the decision to list the tortoise as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the 

recommended steps in the species’ recovery plan, were based on the best available 

information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on recovery actions 

and research over the past 25 years, it is still unclear what the status of the tortoise is 

and what effect, if any, recovery actions are having on the species because research has 

not been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information. Such 

information is critically important as some of the protective actions, such as restrictions 

on grazing and off road vehicle use, are vigorously opposed by interest groups who 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

6

question whether they are necessary for the tortoise’s recovery. Accordingly, we 

recommended that FWS better link land management decisions with research results to 

ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually benefit the tortoise. 

In response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator 

and plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery 

actions are fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that, similar 

to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions about listing species for 

protection under the act were generally based on the best available information. 

However, while most critical habitat designations also appeared to be based on the best 

available information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information 

available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical habitat decisions 

require detailed information of a species’ life history and habitat needs and the economic 

impacts of such decisions—information that is often not available and that FWS is 

unable to gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a result, we 

recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how and when critical habitat 

should be designated and identify if any policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are 

required to enable the department to make better informed designations. FWS has not 

responded to our recommendation. 

Collaborating to Protect Endangered Species 

At the heart of many of the controversies surrounding the Endangered Species Act is the 

competition for natural resources—competition between the needs of threatened and 

endangered species and resource extraction industries, land owners, and other users of 

the natural resources on which those species depend. Our work has largely focused on 

the challenges that agencies face in protecting species while carrying out their other 

mission-related related responsibilities, some of which could have a negative impact on 

protected species. While our work has highlighted positive examples where 

collaboration between federal agencies has reduced conflict, there is still room for 

improvement. 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

7

Collaboration Can Help the Military Sustain Critical Functions While Protecting 

Endangered Species

We saw the importance of collaboration among federal agencies in our work evaluating 

the protection of threatened and endangered species and habitat on military installations 

in the United States. Many DOD and other federal agency officials have recognized that 

military lands often provide some of the finest remaining examples of rare wildlife 

habitat for protected species. In fact, more than 300 threatened or endangered species 

inhabit military lands. However, DOD officials are concerned that the presence of 

protected species may constrain essential military training. DOD officials have identified 

the Endangered Species Act, along with other factors such as competition for air space 

and urban growth around military installations, as issues affecting or having the potential 

to affect military training and readiness.5

In September 2003,6 we issued a report on the extent to which DOD and other federal 

land management agencies are cooperatively managing the protection of endangered 

species affecting military training ranges, and the factors that can limit such 

collaboration. We found several cases where DOD and other federal land managers have 

entered into cooperative agreements that have benefited both the species and the 

military. For example, collaboration among federal agencies around the Air Force’s 

Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona, minimized the impact of restrictions on training 

exercises that were necessary to protect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (a species 

similar in appearance to an antelope). Previously, Air Force officials reported that 32 

percent of their live-fire missions were either cancelled or moved due to the presence of 

the pronghorn. Air Force officials worked with FWS and National Park Service officials 

to jointly fund forage enhancement plots, which provided food sources for the Sonoran 

 

5

 U. S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage 

Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002). See also U.S. General

Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training Ranges 

Still Evolving, GAO-03-621T (Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003); and U.S. General Accounting Office,

Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training 

Ranges, GAO-02-727T (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002). 6

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase 

Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges, GAO-03-976 (Washington

D.C.: September 29, 2003). 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

8

pronghorn. The plots enticed the pronghorn to an adjacent national wildlife refuge and 

away from military training areas and, as a result, minimized the impact of restrictions 

on training missions. 

However, the instances of collaboration between DOD and the Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture were limited. Although the departments have entered into 

memorandums of understanding that contain specific actions to be taken to implement 

cooperative management—such as forming interagency working groups, identifying 

geographic regions for species management, and identifying reporting requirements—

many of the specific actions in these agreements were never fully implemented and most 

agreements had expired. When there were examples of cooperative management efforts 

between DOD and other federal land managers, they were often initiated in response to a 

crisis, such as a marked decline in a species’ population or land-use restrictions that 

significantly impacted federal land managers’ abilities to carry out their missions. The 

Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture identified a number of factors that 

can limit interagency cooperative management for endangered species affecting military 

training ranges. In addition to the absence of a shared sense of crisis among federal land 

managers, other obstacles to agency collaboration included limited agency interaction, 

resource constraints, lack of land manager training and experience, and the lack of 

centralized or otherwise easily accessible sources of information. 

In our September 2003 report, we recommended that the Secretaries of Defense, the 

Interior, and Agriculture develop and implement an interagency strategy, a 

comprehensive training program, and a centralized data source for cooperative 

management efforts. The departments concurred on the need to improve interagency 

cooperation. The Department of Defense, FWS, and others have initiated plans for an 

interagency strategy, training program, and information sharing mechanisms. 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

9

Collaboration Can Help Reduce the Contentiousness of the Consultation Process

Collaboration is central to the consultation process required under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act, where federal agency officials must jointly assess the potential 

impacts of agency activities on protected species. The process can get contentious, 

however, because it sometimes pits officials at the Services against officials from other 

agencies who are attempting to carry out typical agency activities. For example, the 

process can become difficult when an agency such as the Corps of Engineers is planning 

an activity in accordance with its mission to support navigation in the nation’s 

waterways, such as issuing permits for dock construction, and the Services recommend 

project changes in order to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Such 

changes can impact the nature of the original project, and add to the time and cost 

necessary to complete what some agency officials described as seemingly benign or 

insignificant activities. 

We issued a report in March 2004 that evaluated the consultation process in the 

northwestern United States.7

 We were asked to evaluate the consultation process in this 

region because of persistent concerns about the time and cost that consultation added to 

federal activities and activities that are federally-permitted or funded. In the northwest 

United States, the consultation process is a prominent feature of federal land 

management because of the region's combination of large areas of federal land and 

significant numbers of listed species. Endangered or threatened species in this region 

include the Northern spotted owl, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, bull trout, and various 

species of salmon. 

Between 1997 and 2000, 25 species in the northwest were identified for protection under 

the Endangered Species Act. This prompted concerns about the consultation process 

because many projects in the region were delayed, sometimes for years, because of the 

 

7

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is Needed to 

Improve the Consultation Process, GAO-04-93 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004). See also U.S. General

Accounting Office, Endangered Species: Despite Consultation Improvements Efforts in the Pacific 

Northwest, Concerns Persist about the Process, GAO-03-949T (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2003). 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

10

Services’ inability to address the associated workload increases. For example, according 

to a local community representative, before salmon were listed for protection in the late 

1990s, the Corps of Engineers’ permitting process for activities such as constructing or 

modifying private docks on Lake Washington generally took only 2 or 3 months and 

averaged about 5 percent of construction costs. Since salmon were listed, the Corps 

must consult with NMFS when issuing these permits. This representative said that, as a 

result, the timeframes for permits have increased to about 24 months and permitting 

costs have increased to about 33 percent of construction costs. 

We found that, in response to concerns about the consultation process, the Services and 

other federal agencies had taken steps in three general categories to make the 

consultation process more collaborative and efficient. 

• The Services and other federal agencies took steps to facilitate collaboration 

among their staffs so that disagreements about species protections and project 

modifications could be resolved before they slowed down the consultation 

process. Officials at the agencies cited several benefits of these steps such as 

increased trust between the Services and other agencies, better communication, 

and earlier involvement in projects, which many officials emphasized as important 

for consultations to run efficiently. 

• The Services and other federal agencies also developed approaches to reduce the 

consultation workload, such as including multiple related activities in a single 

consultation. According to officials, this has increased the efficiency of the 

consultation process and enabled the agencies to deal more quickly with activities 

for which the effects on species are known. 

• The Services and other federal agencies took steps to increase the consistency 

and transparency of the consultation process, such as providing interagency 

training courses and posting guidance and information on agency Web sites. For 

example, to address disagreements between the Services and other federal 

agencies, the Services issued guidance on how to assess the effects of right-of-way 

permits on protected species. 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

11

Despite efforts to improve the consultation process, officials with the Services and other 

federal agencies still have concerns about two key issues. First, officials at the agencies 

are still concerned about workload. While staff levels have increased in recent years, 

increases in personnel have been outpaced by the increasing number and complexity of 

consultations. Officials told us that more activities are going through the consultation 

process than before and that projects are becoming more complex, requiring greater 

analysis and staff time to identify potential impacts on species and any necessary 

protections. Second, officials at the Services and other federal agencies sometimes 

disagree about the extent to which consultation is necessary. Some agency officials said 

they feel pressured by the Services—and by the fear of litigation—to seek consultation, 

regardless of the likely effects of an activity on protected species, including in situations 

where they feel consultation is unnecessary. Officials at the Services also cited the fear 

of litigation, and said they believed that they were simply fulfilling their responsibilities 

under the act to consult on projects that may affect protected species regardless of the 

level of the potential impact. The result is a continued sense of frustration among 

agency officials regarding what protections are necessary under the Endangered Species 

Act and the time it takes to reach agreements in agency consultations. 

Because many concerns about the consultation process center on its timeliness, we 

recommended in our March 2004 report that FWS and NMFS work with other agencies to 

determine how best to capture data on the level of effort devoted to the consultation 

process and use this information to manage the process. We further recommended that 

the Secretaries of the Interior and Defense, the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Chief of the Forest Service work together to resolve 

disagreements about when consultation is required and how detailed an analysis is 

necessary. Both FWS and NMFS have taken steps to improve information management 

of the consultation process, although it is unclear whether they have determined how to 

capture the level of effort devoted to the process—admittedly, a difficult task. While 

FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand collaborative processes, in an 

update on their actions, the agencies stated that they did not believe that disagreements 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

12

about the consultation process require the adoption of additional measures. They 

believe that the current training and guidance on consultation is sufficient to address 

questions about the process. 

Using Scientific Information to Make Decisions 

 

Scientific information is a key component of most decisions regarding the 

implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Our work has largely focused on how 

FWS has used information in key decisions about endangered species, such as listing 

threatened and endangered species, designating critical habitat, and developing species 

recovery plans. While we found that FWS has generally done a good job using available 

information to make decisions, there is still room for improvement. 

While Many Key Protection Decisions for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Were Based on the 

Best Available Information, FWS Has Not Always Integrated Research Into Ongoing 

Recovery Decisions

In a December 2002 report,8 we found that key FWS decisions were supported by the 

best available information. We relied on experts identified for us by the National 

Academy of Sciences to review FWS listing, critical habitat, and recovery plan decisions 

for the Mojave Desert tortoise. Based on their review of the information available at the 

time the respective decisions were made, the scientists we consulted agreed that the 

listing of the desert tortoise in 1990, the critical habitat designation, and the 

recommendations in the recovery plan were reasonable. These scientists recognized 

that, as is often the case with such decisions, little published data on the species were 

available. However, they agreed that FWS’s decisions were appropriate and consistent 

with their understanding of the agency’s responsibilities under the act. 

Our report, however, was less positive with regard to what FWS had learned about the 

tortoise since their decisions were made. We found that while over $100 million (in 

 

8

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring 

Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program, GAO-03-23 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2002). 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

13

constant 2001 dollars) had been spent on research and recovery efforts over the past 25 

years, there was still little known about the species’ status, the key threats to its survival, 

or the effectiveness of management actions implemented to help the tortoise. While 

many actions intended to protect the tortoise have been taken, necessary research had 

not been conducted to determine whether these actions were effective. For example, the 

Bureau of Land Management prohibited sheep grazing on more than 800,000 acres of 

tortoise habitat in California and implemented restrictions on off-road vehicles in 

tortoise habitat. While individual studies had been conducted on these issues, the 

research had not been coordinated in a way to answer questions about the impact of 

such actions on tortoise populations or habitat. Determining the effectiveness of such 

protective actions is important because they affect large areas of land, were 

recommended on the basis of limited published data, and in some cases, are vigorously 

opposed by certain interest groups. Unless managers link research findings to 

assessments of recovery actions that have been implemented, they cannot make 

determinations based on scientific information as to whether land use restrictions should 

remain unchanged, be strengthened, or whether alternative actions are more 

appropriate. 

To ensure that the most effective actions are taken to protect the tortoise, we 

recommended in our December 2002 report that the Secretary of the Interior develop 

and implement a coordinated research strategy for linking land management decisions 

with research results and periodically reassess the recovery plan for the tortoise. In 

response, FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery coordinator 

and three field coordinators who will help coordinate research and management. In 

addition, the agency plans to create an advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and 

recovery actions are fed back into management decisions. FWS previously utilized an 

expert committee to review the recovery plan for the tortoise. Although the committee 

found that the plan was fundamentally sound, it similarly recommended that ties 

between research and management be strengthened. 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

14

Species Listing and Critical Habitat Decisions Are Based On Best Available Information, 

but Concerns Remain About the Adequacy of that Information 

 

Recent concerns about FWS listing and critical habitat decisions have focused on the 

role that “sound science” plays in the decision making process and whether FWS 

properly interprets scientific data and bases its decisions on adequate scientific 

information. Critics of FWS decisions warn that improper listing and critical habitat 

decisions may disrupt social and economic activities and divert funding and attention 

away from species truly facing extinction. The Endangered Species Act requires FWS to 

use the best available information when making decisions to list species or designate 

critical habitat. It is important to note that the “best available” standard does not 

obligate FWS to conduct studies to obtain new data, but prohibits the agency from 

ignoring available information. FWS goes through an extensive series of procedural 

steps that involve public participation and review by outside experts (i.e., peer 

reviewers) to help ensure that it collects relevant data and uses it appropriately. 

In August 2003, we reported on FWS’s use of available scientific information in making 

listing and critical habitat decisions.9

 Because of the number of species decisions to 

analyze and the inherent difficulties in independently assessing available scientific 

information and determining what constitutes a scientific sound decision, we identified 

several proxies for assessing the reliability of FWS listing and critical habitat decisions. 

These proxies entailed reviews of: 

• The procedures FWS follows for gathering information and internally reviewing 

decision documents; 

• Comments from peer reviewers on listing and critical habitat decisions; 

• The outcomes of legal challenges to these decisions; and 

• Subsequent changes to FWS listing and critical habitat decisions, such as after 

additional scientific information had been gathered. 

 

9

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best Available 

Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for Critical Habitat Designations, 

GAO-03-803 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2003). 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

15

In each case, we determined that, overall, FWS species listing and critical habitat 

decisions were based on the best available information. However, experts and others 

knowledgeable about the Endangered Species Act have expressed concerns about FWS’s 

ability to designate critical habitat for some listed species given the amount of 

information available on the species’ habitat needs at the time decisions must be made—

at the time of listing or shortly thereafter. Unlike listing decisions that are more 

straightforward—requiring FWS to answer only a “yes or no” question as to whether a 

species warrants listing—critical habitat decisions often require more detailed 

knowledge of a species’ life history and habitat needs and call for FWS to factor in the 

species’ special management needs as well as the economic impacts of the designation. 

FWS officials, experts, and others with whom we spoke agreed that the amount of 

scientific information available when they are required to designate critical habitat is 

limited and often affects FWS’s ability to adequately define the habitat essential to the 

species’ conservation. While some interested parties stated that FWS designated areas 

too broadly and included lands unsuitable for several species, others said that FWS did 

not designate enough habitat for some listed species. According to FWS officials, the 

resource and time constraints under which its scientists work often preclude them from 

collecting new information and, as a result, their ability to produce adequate critical 

habitat designations may be limited by the information available for some species. We 

found that most scientific disagreements surrounding recent critical habitat designations 

concerned whether the area chosen as critical habitat is sufficiently defined or whether 

the overall information used to support the designation is adequate. In order to increase 

the amount of information available on which to base critical habitat designations, FWS 

and others, including the National Research Council, have recommended delaying 

designations until recovery plans are developed.

10

 

We also reported that FWS’s critical habitat program faced a serious crisis that extended 

well beyond the use of science in making decisions. Key court decisions have 

invalidated certain practices adopted by the agency, causing its critical habitat program 

 

10 National Research Council, Science and the Endangered Species Act (Washington D.C.: National 

Academy Press, 1995) pp. 71-93. 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

16

to become overburdened by litigation. Specifically, a key court case in 1997 invalidated 

FWS’s policy regarding when it was prudent to designate critical habitat for listed 

species.11 Prior to the decision, FWS had designated critical habitat for only about 10 

percent of listed species. Since then, court orders and settlement agreements have 

compelled FWS to designate critical habitat in cases that the agency had previously 

determined doing so was not prudent. In 2001, FWS lost another key lawsuit, challenging 

the adequacy of the economic analyses the agency used to support its critical habitat 

designations.12 Since this decision was issued, court orders and settlement agreements 

have prompted FWS to re-issue some critical habitat decisions. The Department of the 

Interior believes that the flood of litigation over critical habitat designation is preventing 

FWS from taking what it deems to be higher priority activities, such as addressing the 

approximately 250 “candidate” species waiting to go through the listing process (listing 

and critical habitat activities are funded under the same line item in the department’s 

budget). 

Because FWS’s critical habitat program faces serious challenges, including questions 

regarding the role of critical habitat in species conservation, we recommended in our 

August 2003 report that the Secretary of the Interior provide clear strategic direction for 

the critical habitat program by clarifying the role of critical habitat and how and when it 

should be designated and recommending policy, regulatory, and/or legislative changes 

necessary to address these issues. The Department did not respond to our request to 

comment on a draft of this report and has not formally indicated whether or not it 

intends to implement the recommendation. 

Conclusion 

We recognize that passions run high when issues concern the Endangered Species Act. 

The act, with its broad powers to restrict the use of natural resources and impinge upon 

individual property rights, coupled with its noble purpose to conserve the ecosystems 

 

11 Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Department of the Interior, 113 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 

1997). 

12 New Mexico Cattle Growers v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

17

upon which threatened and endangered species depend, provides a crucible for an 

ongoing national debate concerning the tradeoffs between economic, social, and 

environmental values. As members of the Subcommittee are well aware, there are no 

easy answers. However, there is common ground among everyone concerned about the 

act and its impact on the nation and its resources. All can agree that reducing the 

negative impacts of implementing the act—whether it be the loss of credibility for the 

Services over debates about “sound science” or the perceived injustice of limited 

resource use due to needed species protections—while improving the status of 

threatened and endangered species is a worthy goal. In our testimony today, we have 

highlighted just a few examples where federal agencies, working cooperatively and 

diligently, have achieved just that. Unfortunately, we found too few examples of this in 

our work. We believe more can be done. The task before us is to identify how all 

concerned parties—federal, tribal, state, local, and private—can work together to 

improve the status of threatened and endangered species while further reducing the 

negative impacts of implementing the act. As we begin a new review of how species 

recovery plans are being implemented—work that was requested by a bipartisan group 

of Senators and Congressmen including the Chairman of this Subcommittee—we hope 

that the successful examples on collaboration and the use of science we noted here are 

harbingers for future cooperation and success. 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

18

Appendix I: GAO Reports Concerning the Endangered Species Act 

Reports Addressing Implementation of the Endangered Species Act

Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding 

on High-Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions. 

GAO-05-211. Washington, D.C.: April, 6, 2005. 

Protected Species: International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife 

Differently. GAO-04-964. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2004. 

 

Endangered Species: Federal Agencies Have Worked to Improve the Consultation 

Process, but More Management Attention Is Needed. GAO-04-93. Washington, D.C.: 

March 19, 2004. 

 

Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency 

Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges. GAO-03-976. 

Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2003. 

 

Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best Available Science to Make 

Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for Critical Habitat Designations. 

GAO-03-803. Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2003. 

 

Endangered Species: Despite Consultation Improvement Efforts in the Pacific 

Northwest, Concerns Persist about the Process. GAO-03-949T. Washington, D.C.: June 

25, 2003 

 

International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under Five Key 

Agreements. GAO-03-249. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2003. 

 

Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for the 

Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program. GAO-03-23. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 

2002. 

 

Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery 

Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions. GAO-02-612. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 

2002. 

 

International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under Five Key 

Agreements. GAO-02-960T. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002. 

 

Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are Allocated and What 

Activities Are Emphasized. GAO-02-581. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002. 

 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

19

Canada Lynx Survey: Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis. GAO-02-

496T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2002. 

 

Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis. GAO-02-488R. Washington, D.C.: 

March 6, 2002. 

 

Accidental Contamination of Samples Used in Canadian Lynx Study Rendered the 

Study's Preliminary Conclusion Invalid. GAO-01-1018R. Washington, D.C.: August 14, 

2001. 

 

Endangered Species Act: Fee-Based Mitigation Arrangements. GAO-01-287R. 

Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2001. 

 

Fish and Wildlife Service: Challenges to Managing the Carlsbad, California, Field 

Office's Endangered Species Workload. GAO-01-203. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 

2001. 

Fish and Wildlife Service: Weaknesses in the Management of the Endangered Species 

Program Workload at the Carlsbad, California Field Office. T-RCED-00-293. 

Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2000. 

 

Endangered Species: Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest Gains. RCED99-102. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999. 

 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Two Chinook Salmon 

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California. OGC-00-5. Washington, D.C.: 

October 15, 1999. 

 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

Endangered and Threatened Species of Salmonids. OGC-99-38. Washington, D.C.: 

April 7, 1999. 

 

Estimated Costs to Recover Protected Species. RCED-96-34R. Washington, D.C.: 

December 21, 1995. 

 

Reports Related to the Endangered Species Act

Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training Ranges 

Still Evolving. GAO-03-621T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003. 

 

Transboundary Species: Potential Impact to Species. GAO-03-211R. Washington, D.C.: 

October 31, 2002. 

 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

20

Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on 

Training Ranges. GAO-02-614. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002. 

 

Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on 

Training Ranges. GAO-02-727T. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002. 

 

Consequences of the Ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Forest 

Management Projects. GAO-01-51R. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2000. 

 

Timber Management: Forest Service Has Considerable Liability for Suspended or 

Canceled Timber Sales Contracts. GAO-01-184R. Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2000. 

 

Army Corps of Engineers: An Assessment of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement of the Lower Snake River Dams. RCED-00-186. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 

2000. 

 

National Fish Hatcheries: Authority Needed to Better Align Operations With 

Priorities. RCED-00-151. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2000. 

 

Fish and Wildlife Service: Agency Needs to Inform Congress of Future Costs Associated 

With Land Acquisitions. RCED-00-52. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2000. 

 

Fish and Wildlife Service: Management and Oversight of the Federal Aid Program 

Needs Attention. T-RCED-99-259. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 1999. 

 

International Environment: Literature on the Effectiveness of International 

Environmental Agreements. RCED-99-148. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1999. 

 

Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin Plans 

Demonstrate Improvements in Land-Use Planning. RCED-99-64. Washington, D.C.: 

May 26, 1999. 

Forest Service: Distribution of Timber Sales Receipts, Fiscal Years 1995 Through 

1997. RCED-99-24. Washington, D.C.: November 12, 1998. 

 

Water Resources: Corps of Engineers' Actions to Assist Salmon in the Columbia River 

Basin. RCED-98-100. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 1998. 

 

Federal Land Management: Estimates of Value and Economic Effects of Canceled and 

Suspended Timber Sale Contracts in the Pacific Northwest. RCED-98-18R. 

Washington, D.C.: October 6, 1997. 

 

Forest Service: Unauthorized Use of the National Forest Fund. RCED-97-216. 

Washington, D.C.: August 29, 1997. 

 
GAO-05-732T ESA Collaboration and Science 

21

Tongass National Forest: Lack of Accountability for Time and Costs Has Delayed 

Forest Plan Revision. T-RCED-97-153. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1997. 

 

Federal Power: Issues Related to the Divestiture of Federal Hydropower Resources. 

RCED-97-48. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 1997. 

 

Timber Management: Opportunities to Limit Future Liability for Suspended or 

Canceled Timber Sale Contracts. RCED-97-14. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 1996. 

 

Bureau of Reclamation: An Assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. RCED-97-12. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 1996. 

 

Northwest Power Planning Council: Greater Public Oversight of Business Operations 

Would Enhance Accountability. RCED-96-226. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 1996. 

 

Animas-La Plata Project: Status and Legislative Framework. RCED-96-1. Washington, 

D.C.: November 17, 1995. 

 

 

(360573) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER