Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for Critical Habitat Designations
Published: 2003-08-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Recent concerns about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) endangered species listing and critical habitat decisions have focused on the role that "sound science" plays in the decision-making process--whether the Service bases its decisions on adequate scientific data and properly interprets those data. In this report, GAO assesses the extent to which (1) the Service's policies and practices ensure that listing and critical habitat decisions are based on the best available science and (2) external reviewers support the scientific data and conclusions that the Service used to make those decisions. In addition, GAO highlights the nature and extent that litigation is affecting the Service's ability to effectively manage its critical habitat program.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify, or "list," species that are at risk of extinction and provide for their protection. The act also generally requires the Service to designate critical habitat--habitat essential to a species' conservation--for each listed species. The Service must use the best available science when making listing and critical habitat decisions. The Service's policies and practices generally ensure that listing and critical habitat decisions are based on the best available science. The Service consults with experts and considers information from federal and state agencies, academia, other stakeholders, and the general public. Decisions are subject to external "peer review" and extensive internal review to help ensure that decisions are based on the best available science and conform to contemporary scientific principles. External reviews indicate that the Service's listing and critical habitat decisions generally have scientific support, but concerns over the adequacy of critical habitat determinations remain. Listing decisions are often characterized as straightforward, and experts, peer reviewers, and others generally support the science behind these decisions. Critical habitat designations, on the other hand, are more complex and often require additional scientific and nonscientific information. As a result, peer reviewers often expressed concern about the specific areas designated, while other experts expressed concerns about the adequacy of the data available to make designations. The Service's critical habitat program has been characterized by frequent litigation. Specifically, the Service has lost a series of legal challenges that will require significant resources for the next 5 fiscal years to respond to court orders and settlement agreements for designating critical habitat. As a result, the Service is unable to focus resources on activities it believes provide more protection to species than designating critical habitat. While the Service recognizes that it has lost control of the program, it has yet to offer a remedy. Without taking proactive steps to clarify the role of critical habitat and how and when it should be designated, the Service will continue to have difficulty effectively managing the program.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to protect plant  and animal species whose survival is in jeopardy.  The U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service (Service) is responsible for implementing the act for  freshwater and land species.  For many years, the act, its implementation,  and the Service have served as lightning rods in the ongoing national  debate concerning the tradeoffs between economic, social, and  environmental values.  The act requires the Service to list as endangered  any species facing extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its  range and to list as threatened any species likely to become endangered in  the foreseeable future.  The Service must make decisions to list species  solely on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data,  such as biological or trade data obtained from commercial publications.   The act also generally requires the Service to designate critical habitat— habitat essential to a species’ conservation—when listing a species; the  loss of habitat is often the principal cause of species decline.  For critical  habitat decisions, the act again requires the Service to consider the best  available scientific data, but also requires the Service to consider the  economic impact and other relevant impacts of designating particular areas  as critical habitat.  The Service is also required to develop a plan to recover  the listed species to the point that it is no longer threatened or endangered,  an achievement marked by its removal, or delisting, from the list of  threatened or endangered species.
Recent concerns about the Service’s listing and critical habitat decisions  have focused on the role that “sound science” plays in the decision-making  process and whether the Service bases its decisions on adequate scientific  data and properly interprets those data.  Critics of the decisions warn that  improper listing and critical habitat decisions may cause social and  economic disruption and divert funding and attention away from other  species truly facing extinction.  In addition to concerns about its use of  science, the Service is having difficulty managing the listing and critical  habitat programs, in part because of extensive litigation.  Currently, the  Service is experiencing a significant backlog of decisions to list species and  to designate critical habitat.  The Service has identified more than 200  species that qualify for listing but for which the listing process has not yet  begun because of resource limitations or higher-priority actions being  taken for other species.
You asked us to assess the Service’s consideration and use of science in its  decisions to list species as threatened or endangered and to designate  critical habitat.  Specifically, we reviewed the extent to which (1) the  Service’s policies and practices ensure that listing and critical habitat  decisions are based on the best available science and (2) outside reviewers  support the scientific data and conclusions that the Service uses to make  listing and critical habitat decisions.  In addition, in performing our work,  we identified certain factors that could continue to affect the Service’s  ability to effectively manage its critical habitat program.  Our report  highlights the nature and extent of those problems as well.
In meeting our objectives, we examined decision documents for the 101  listing and critical habitat decisions that the Service issued during fiscal  years 1999 through 2002. There were 64 listing decisions and 37 critical  habitat decisions covering 108 and 36 species, respectively.  To evaluate the  adequacy of the science used to support these decisions, we reviewed (1)  the Service’s policies, procedures, and practices for making listing and  critical habitat decisions; (2) the responses of peer reviewers who  commented on 79 listing and critical habitat actions; and (3) judicial  decisions related to listing and critical habitat actions decided during fiscal  years 1999 through 2002.  We also interviewed staff at seven field and  regional offices and at Service headquarters to help understand the  Service’s decision-making process.  We interviewed individuals with  academic, industry, and conservation organizations and the National  Academy of Sciences to better understand why some of the Service’s  decisions are controversial.  In this report, we define “science” as the  collection and interpretation of biological information, such as  identification of the species and its habitat needs.  At no point in our review  did we attempt to directly evaluate the scientific analysis on which the  Service based its listing and critical habitat decisions.  A more detailed  description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to conserve  threatened or endangered plant and animal species.  The act requires the  Service to base its determination of whether a species is endangered or  threatened solely on the basis of the best available scientific and  commercial data.  Available data includes biological or trade data obtained  from scientific or commercial publications, administrative reports, maps or  other graphic materials, or experts on the subject.  Using the best available  data, the act requires the Service to determine whether a species should be  listed as threatened or endangered by analyzing its status based on the  following five factors: present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a  species habitat or range;  overuse for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational   inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or  other natural or manmade factors affecting a species’ continued  existence.
As of June 2003, the Service had listed 1,263 species in the United States as  threatened or endangered.  This total included 517 animal species and 746  plant species.  The number of species listed per year has varied  considerably, as shown in figure 1.  There are also 558 foreign species listed  as threatened or endangered.
As of June 2003, the Service was in the process of listing 36 more species  and had identified 251 species as candidates for listing.  The act also  requires the Service to designate critical habitat for listed species.  Critical  habitat is a specific geographic area that is essential for the conservation of  a threatened or endangered species and that may require special  management and protection.  As of June 2003, 417 domestic species had  critical habitat designated.  The number of critical habitat designations per  year has varied considerably, as shown in figure 2.
The Endangered Species Act has provisions to protect and recover species  once they are listed.  The act prohibits the “taking” of listed animal species  by any party—federal or nonfederal.  “Taking” or “take” means to harass,  harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a listed  species.  Also, federal agencies must ensure that their activities, or any  activities they fund, permit, or license, do not jeopardize the continued  existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse  modification of its critical habitat. The act establishes a process for federal  agencies to consult with the Service about their activities that may affect  listed species.  In addition, the act requires that the Service develop a  recovery plan to reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its  long-term survival.  A recovery plan may include a variety of methods and  procedures to recover listed species, such as protective measures to  prevent extinction or further decline, habitat acquisition and restoration,  and other on-the-ground activities for managing and monitoring  endangered and threatened species.  To date, seven domestic species have  been delisted due to recovery.  (App. II provides additional information on  the process used by the Service to protect listed species.)
section_title: Procedures Are in Place to Ensure That Listing and Critical Habitat Decisions Are Based on the Best Available Science
paragraphs: The Endangered Species Act requires the Service to use the best available  scientific data when deciding to list species or designate critical habitat.   The “best available” standard does not obligate the Service to conduct  studies to obtain missing data, but it prohibits the Service from ignoring  available data.  The Service goes through an extensive series of procedural  steps that involves public participation and review by outside experts to  help ensure that it collects relevant data and uses it appropriately.   Although the process alone is not sufficient to ensure the accuracy of the  Service’s listing and critical habitat decisions, it generally ensures that the  Service is using and considering the “best available” data.
subsections: section_title: Internal Decision-Making Process Helps Ensure That the Service Uses Best Available Science in Making Decisions
paragraphs: The Service follows a rigorous process in listing a species as endangered or  threatened, designating critical habitat, or removing a species from the  endangered and threatened list.  The Service’s process includes following a  rulemaking procedure, established by the Endangered Species Act,  supported by additional procedures under Service regulations and  guidance.  The complete text of the proposed and final rules and related  information (including a summary of data on which the proposal is based  and a summary of comments received on the proposal) are published in the  Federal Register, the government’s official publication for making public  the regulations and legal notices issued by federal agencies.  The act and  regulations require the Service to provide an opportunity for public  participation in the rulemaking process, notify affected states and local  jurisdictions and invite comments from them and other interested parties,  notify newspapers and professional journals, and hold at least one public  hearing, if requested, within 45 days of publishing the proposal.   Additionally, Service procedures provide for listing and critical habitat  decisions to be reviewed internally to help ensure that the professional  judgment that the Service’s scientists exercise when weighing and  interpreting the collected data is sound and conforms to contemporary  scientific theories and principles.
The process to list a species begins either through a petition from an  individual, group, or state agency or through the initiative of the Service  (see fig. 3).
When a petition is filed to list a species, the Service provides a copy of the  petition to, and requests information from, appropriate state agencies and  affected tribal governments.  The Service uses the information that it  receives from these parties (or that which is contained in the petition or  otherwise readily available) to make its initial determination as to whether  a species may be threatened or endangered, and if so, to proceed with data  gathering and analysis.  The act requires the Service to make this  determination generally within 90 days of receiving the petition.  If the  Service determines that it should proceed, it conducts a “status review”—a  review of all the available information on a species—to determine whether  the species warrants protection under the act.  To conduct the status  review, the Service solicits comments and requests information from the  general public (by publishing a notice in the Federal Register) and contacts  affected local, state, tribal and federal agencies; interested conservation or  industry groups; and scientific organizations or professionals interested in  and/or knowledgeable about the species.  The Service may also fund field  surveys, museum research, and literature searches in order to compile  available information.  Service scientists who conduct status reviews told  us that they often work closely with experts from other government  agencies, academia, and elsewhere to help gather and interpret  information.  In some instances, the Service initiates a review of a species  without a petition, for which it conducts a candidate assessment—similar  to a status review—to identify available information.
Within 12 months of receiving a petition for which the Service proceeded  with a status review, the Service must determine whether the species’  listing is warranted.  If a Service field office makes an initial determination  that the listing is warranted, it prepares a proposed rule for publication in  the Federal Register.  Before the proposed rule is published, a draft  receives considerable internal review by officials in the Service’s field,  regional, and headquarters offices.  The review by officials in the field and  regional offices helps ensure the exercise of sound professional judgment.  The field office that is responsible for the listing provides the appropriate  regional office with the draft of the proposed rule and all supporting  scientific information.  Officials in the regional office review the proposed  rule to ensure that scientific information supports the proposed rule.   Regions are responsible for ensuring that the proposed rule is scientifically  accurate and biologically and legally sound.  Regional officials told us that  the review is an opportunity for the region to identify information gaps and  issues concerning how the information supports the conclusions.  At the  Service’s headquarters, the draft proposed rule is reviewed to ensure that it  is consistent with other listing rules and complies with national policies.   Either the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Assistant  Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks approves all proposed rules  before publication.
Upon publication, the public has at least 60 days to provide comments on a  proposed rule.  The Service may extend the public comment period and/or  reopen it at a later date.  Service officials told us that the public comment  period is an opportunity to reach biologists, scientists, academicians, and  advocacy groups that the Service may not have contacted previously.  The  Service also holds public hearings, if requested.  At the end of the public  comment period, the Service reevaluates all the data, including the  comments received since the proposal was published, to determine  whether the listing is still warranted.  If not, the proposal will be  withdrawn.  The Service must publish its final decision within 12 months of  its proposal.  In cases when experts disagree on the accuracy or sufficiency  of the available data concerning the proposed listing, or the release of  additional information that may affect the outcome of the petition is  expected, the proposal may be extended 6 months beyond the normal 12- month time frame.  In the event that the listing is warranted, the Service  prepares a final rule, incorporating appropriate changes based on the  information received during the comment period.   Final rules are subject  to the same internal review process as proposed rules and are approved by  either the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service or Assistant Secretary  for Fish and Wildlife and Parks before being published.
The procedures for designating critical habitat are similar to those for  listing a species.  However, in designating critical habitat, the Service must  also take into consideration the economic and other impacts of specifying  any particular area as critical habitat.  The Assistant Secretary of Fish and  Wildlife and Parks approves critical habitat designations.
Officials at all levels of the agency demonstrated familiarity with the  requirements of the review process and stated that they believe it provides  the general guidelines necessary to ensure the best available data are  identified and properly interpreted.  Field office officials noted that  proposed and final rules are challenged internally to ensure they can  withstand public scrutiny and that while rulemakings are initiated at the  field level, extensive review ensures that the entire agency is on board  before anything is finalized.  Scientists and other agency personnel told us  that they use the process to test the validity of their listing and critical  habitat decisions.  Some officials emphasized the crucial role that the  experience and expertise of the Service’s scientists play in ensuring that  listing and critical habitat decisions are based on the best available science.
section_title: Outside Experts Review Proposed Rules
paragraphs: Peer review is considered to be the most reliable tool to ensure that quality  science will prevail over social, economic, and political considerations in  the development of a particular product or decision.  Peer review—a  routine component of science—can substantially enhance the quality and  credibility of the scientific or technical basis for a decision.  For regulatory  decisions, peer review can provide for independent and expert analysis to  complement the adversarial and political nature of rulemaking.
While many federal agencies were already using peer review, the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance in 2002 recommending  that federal agencies utilize formal, independent external peer review (peer  review by individuals outside of the agency) to ensure the quality of data  and analytic results disseminated to the public.  It also recommended that  peer reviewers be selected primarily on the basis of their technical  expertise, that they disclose any source of bias (either prior technical or  policy positions or sources of personal and institutional funding from  which they may benefit), and that peer review be conducted in an open and  rigorous manner.
Federal agencies have adopted a variety of peer-review practices,  depending on the nature of the product or decision under review.  As we  reported in 1999, peer-review practices at federal agencies vary according  to their intended use and form.  According to OMB’s 2002 guidance,  agencies should tailor the rigor and intensity of peer review in accordance  with the significance of risk or management implications of the information  involved.   The form of peer review can range from informal consultations  with agency colleagues not involved in the earlier stages of the project to  formal external advisory panels, which can span several years and cost  thousands of dollars.  In addition, for each different form of peer review,  there are multiple variations—the amount of time allocated for the review,  the number of reviewers, and whether the review occurs internally or  externally—all of which affect the overall time and cost required to  conduct a review.
In addition to its internal decision-making processes, the Service uses  external peer review of listing and critical habitat decisions to ensure that  the best biological and commercial information is being considered.  The  Service’s peer-review policy requires officials to solicit the opinions of  three appropriate and independent experts regarding scientific data and  assumptions supporting listing and critical habitat decisions.  Peer  reviewers are selected at the discretion of the field office scientists  responsible for developing listing and critical habitat decisions.  The  reviewers, who may come from the academic and scientific community,  tribal and other Native American groups, federal and state agencies, and/or  the private sector, are selected on the basis of their independence and  expertise on the species being considered, similar species, the species’  habitat, or other relevant subject matter.  The Service’s scientists may ask  peer reviewers to critique specific aspects of the proposed rule, such as the  Service’s interpretation of a particular study, or they may ask reviewers to  comment on the rule in its entirety.
The Service’s peer-review policy generally appears to be appropriate for the  circumstances in which it is used.  Although other agencies may use more  rigorous forms of peer review, such as convening a peer-review panel or a  science advisory board, the Service’s peer-review process allows the  Service to make listing and critical habitat decisions under relatively short  time frames (the Service usually asks peer reviewers to perform their  review during the public comment period—normally 60 days—while a  peer-review panel may span several months or years).  However, to help  ensure the identification of complete and current information on a species  and its habitat, the Service may contact experts during the status review.  In  addition, any decisions that are issued as “final” rules can later be  reconsidered as circumstances warrant or new information becomes  available.  In fact, a species can be delisted if new information surfaces  indicating that the original decision to list was not warranted.
One limitation that the Service faces in getting an independent review is the  scarcity of experts on a particular species.  For example, in some instances,  the most qualified experts to peer review a decision may have authored  some of the studies that the Service used to support its decision, forcing  the Service to balance expertise with independence.  However, according  to a National Academy of Sciences report that reviewed the Environmental  Protection Agency’s use of peer review for similar actions, to choose an  individual to peer review who is both an expert and independent might be  impossible, or might not promote the best possible review.  In such cases,  an appropriate balance of views may be sought to ensure that different  interpretations on the scientific and technical merit of a decision are taken  into consideration.  Such cases should, however, be fully disclosed.  Other  organizations have developed procedures for assessing the independence  of peer reviewers, ranging from simply requiring peer reviewers to disclose  any potential bias, to using third parties to identify peer reviewers based, in  part, on their independence.  Service officials told us that they have not  adopted a formal procedure to assess peer reviewers’ independence, and  the Service does not publicly disclose in the Federal Register potential  conflicts or prior involvement by its peer reviewers when the Service  publishes the final rule.
The Service generally complied with its peer-review policy of soliciting  peer review from at least three reviewers during fiscal years 1999 through  2002.  During this time, the Service solicited three or more peer reviewers  in 94 out of the 100 listing and critical habitat decisions it made.  In three  instances the Service solicited fewer than three peer reviewers, and in  three other instances documentation was unavailable to indicate how many  reviewers were asked. (See app. III for a complete list of the decisions  with the number of peer reviewers solicited, the number that responded,  and how they responded.)
While the Service generally complied with its policy to seek peer reviewers,  reviewers often did not respond.  As shown in figure 4, the Service received  responses from three or more peer reviewers in 38 decisions for which it  solicited at least three peer reviewers.  It received either one or two  responses in 41 decisions, and no responses in 15 decisions.
Field office scientists, as well as an expert on peer review, reported a  variety of reasons for the limited number of responses, including (1) the  potential peer reviewers had busy schedules and felt constrained by the  short time frames allotted to conduct the review, and (2) the potential  reviewers were unwilling to conduct peer review either because they did  not want to become involved in a controversial decision or because they  did not want to work without compensation.  In addition, the field office  scientists reported that potential peer reviewers may not be inclined to  conduct peer review because they found nothing to criticize or had already  provided comments at an earlier stage of the decision, such as during the  status review.
Recognizing the importance of peer review, some regional and field offices  have taken steps to increase the number of respondents.  For example,  some field offices contact potential peer reviewers in advance, rather than  initiating contact just before the decision is open for peer review; others  maintain communication with the peer reviewers throughout the process.  For example, the Pacific Islands field office in Honolulu, Hawaii, has  assigned an administrative staff person to initiate phone calls and E-mails  to help remind and encourage peer reviewers to respond.  This staff person  also monitors the implementation of the peer-review policy and tracks  results.  In order to increase the likelihood that at least three peer  reviewers respond to a request, some field offices request peer reviews  from more than three individuals. Field office scientists suggested other  ways to increase the response rate, such as providing monetary  compensation, using a third party to select and coordinate peer review,  narrowing the scope of the review, and providing more time for review.
section_title: Peer Reviewers and Others Conclude that Most Listing Decisions Are Based on Best Available Science, but Concerns about Critical Habitat Decisions Remain
paragraphs: External reviews of listing and critical habitat decisions indicate that most  decisions are generally scientifically supported, but concerns about the  adequacy of critical habitat determinations remain.  Listing decisions are  often characterized as straightforward, requiring the Service to answer  only a “yes or no” question as to whether a species warrants inclusion on  the threatened or endangered list. Critical habitat designations, on the  other hand, are more complex and often require further information on the  species’ habitat requirements and other management considerations.  Peer  reviewers often expressed concerns about the specific areas designated as  critical habitat, while other experts expressed concerns about the  adequacy of the information available to make the designation.
subsections: section_title: Little Scientific Disagreement Surrounds Listing Decisions
paragraphs: Experts and others have found most of the Service’s listing decisions to be  scientifically supported.  Experts knowledgeable about the Endangered  Species Act and recent studies assessing the Service’s use of science in  making listing decisions concur that the Service’s listing decisions are  generally supported.  Similarly, experts not affiliated with the Service have  peer-reviewed proposals to list species and overwhelmingly supported the  Service’s decisions. The courts have overturned few listing decisions on the  basis of inadequate science, and the Service has delisted few species on the  basis of new information that suggested that protection under the act was  not originally warranted.
subsections: section_title: Experts and Others Generally Support Service Listing Decisions
paragraphs: Experts, Service officials, and others knowledgeable about the Endangered  Species Act largely agree that most listing decisions have been relatively  straightforward and scientifically supported.  Experts and others we spoke  to generally agreed that most listed species probably deserved being listed  under the current standard for best available scientific information.  For  example, several attorneys, who represent the regulated community in  challenges to the Service’s decisions, stated that, given the Service’s short  time frames and limited resources, the science used to support most listing  decisions did not present a significant problem.  However, these attorneys  and others contend that the “best available data” standard does not provide  enough certainty that a species is threatened or endangered and suggest  that a more stringent standard should be developed.  On the other hand,  interested parties representing a diverse set of interests raised concerns  that Service officials at the Headquarters level are succumbing to political  pressures to not list species despite support from regional and field  scientists who believe evidence shows that listing is warranted.  Service  scientists told us they believe many listed species have low populations  and/or face clearly identified threats, indicating that the species are at risk.  They said that many listing decisions have been made to protect species  native to a specific area, with a narrow range, or for which substantial  scientific information was already available or easy to collect.  On the other  hand, the scientists noted that collecting information becomes more  difficult and costly when a wide-ranging species may be at risk.   Additionally, several scientific disagreements regarding listing decisions  have surfaced in recent years, mostly concerning whether the amount of  information available at the time a decision is made suffices as a basis for a  decision. (See app. IV for information on the nature of scientific  controversy surrounding the Service’s decisions to list species.)  Finally,  many of the experts we spoke with had concerns about the science used to  support other aspects of the act, such as recovery actions or consultations  with federal entities on proposed actions that could potentially harm a  listed species.
Several studies have supported the Service’s use of science in making  listing decisions.  The Ecological Society of America—a professional  society of ecologists representing ecological researchers in more than 60  countries—released a study on the use of science in achieving the goals of  the act that concluded that the major problem with the listing process has  been its slowness rather than the quality of the listing decisions.  The  National Research Council (NRC) reached similar conclusions in a 1995  report, finding that many of the conflicts and disagreements over the  Endangered Species Act do not appear to be based on scientific issues.   More recently, in 2002, NRC reviewed the genetic evidence used to support  one particular listing decision, the listing of the Gulf of Maine Atlantic  salmon distinct population segment.  It concluded that Maine salmon are  genetically distinct from other salmon, supporting the Service’s decision to  list the species.
section_title: Peer Reviewers Overwhelmingly Support the Service’s Use of Science in Making Listing Decisions
paragraphs: The Service received 143 peer-review responses for 54 of the 63 listing  decisions finalized between fiscal years 1999 and 2002 and no responses for  the remaining 9 decisions (see app. III).  In 48 of these decisions, reviewers  providing comments unanimously agreed with the Service’s scientific  conclusions or otherwise indicated support for the decision to list the  species. In two decisions, the Service reported that one of the peer  reviewer’s opinions was “neutral,” and the rest of the opinions were  supportive. In two other decisions, we were unable to determine the nature  of one of the peer reviewer’s response.  Peer reviewers disagreed with the  Service in the following two decisions:   Alabama sturgeon. One of the five reviewers to provide comments on  the proposal to list the Alabama sturgeon, a freshwater fish historically  found throughout the Mobile River basin of Alabama and Mississippi,  disagreed with the Service’s proposed listing determination. While the  reviewer did not directly respond to the Service’s request for peer  review, he did provide comments at one of the public hearings regarding  the proposed rule. The reviewer argued that the Alabama sturgeon was  not a valid species given the fish’s morphological (i.e., physical  appearance such as color pattern, shape, and scale patterns) and genetic  evidence. The other four reviewers responding to the proposed rule  supported the validity of the Alabama sturgeon as a species.
Desert yellowhead. One of two reviewers who provided comments on  the proposed rule to list the desert yellowhead (a flowering plant that  occurs in Wyoming) agreed that the species was rare and in need of  protection, but did not agree that listing the species under the act was  the appropriate mechanism. The other reviewer supported listing the  plant.
section_title: Courts Have Overturned Few Listing Decisions on the Basis of Inadequate Science
paragraphs: The Service’s actions and inactions under the act are frequently challenged  in the courts.  In hearing such challenges, courts must defer to agencies in  judging actions, such as listing decisions, and must not substitute their  judgment for an agency’s, especially on technical matters.  As a result,  courts will uphold an agency decision when it is evident that the agency  considered the relevant facts and articulated a rational connection between  those facts and its decision.  Partly because of the deference granted to  the Service in making listing determinations, most litigation has not  directly challenged the Service’s use of science.  Instead, according to an  official from the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, most  litigation revolves around definitional or procedural issues, such as the  Service’s failure to meet statutory time frames.  The official said that  litigants often challenge decisions on nonscientific aspects of the act  because they feel this provides them with a stronger case.  Thus, the fact  that the courts have rarely ruled against the Service on the basis of  inadequate science is not necessarily an affirmation that the Service used  the best available science.
Based on a review of federal court cases decided during fiscal years 1999  through 2002, we identified 17 cases in which a court issued an opinion  related to the Service’s listing decisions.  The Service lost 11 of these cases,  mostly because it failed to take certain actions regarding decisions to list or  not to list a species within the time allotted by the act.  However, the courts  overturned listing decisions on the basis of issues related to the use of  scientific data in the following two cases:  Sacramento splittail. In 2000, a federal court ruled that the decision to  list the Sacramento splittail was not supported by the best scientific  data available.  The splittail is a large fish with a distinctive tail and is  native to California’s Central Valley. Regional water authorities  challenged the listing of the splittail on scientific grounds, asserting,  among other things, that the Service ignored an important study  indicating resiliency and an increasing abundance of the splittail. The  court rejected the Service’s arguments that these data were not  submitted in time to be considered and were irrelevant, and found there  to be no indication that the Service considered substantial evidence that  suggested that the splittail should not be listed. The court thus  concluded that the Service had failed to consider all available data. The  Service is in the process of reevaluating this listing rule.
Westslope cutthroat trout. In 2002, a federal court ruled that the  Service’s decision not to list the Westslope cutthroat trout was not  supported by the best scientific data available.  The Westslope trout is  one of 14 subspecies of cutthroat trout native to streams in the western  United States.  In its decision not to list the trout, the Service identified  hybridization (the breeding with other species of trout) as one of the  threats to the species, but included these hybrid fish in the population  considered for listing. The court noted that if hybridization were a  “threat” to the species, it would seem logical that hybrid fish should not  be included in the population under consideration.  After explaining that  the identification of the existing population of the trout was vital to the  ultimate listing determination, the court found that the record failed to  offer a rationale for including hybrid stocks in the population that it  considered for listing, and concluded that the Service had ignored  existing scientific data for assessing the degree of hybridization that  may be appropriate to include in the population. The court remanded  the case to the Service for reconsideration.
The Service lost the following two cases because it failed to assess whether  the species was imperiled throughout “a significant portion of its range.”
Flat-tailed horned lizard. In 2001, an environmental group successfully  challenged the Service’s decision not to list the flat-tailed horned lizard,  a small lizard found in desert lands in the southwestern United States.  In reaching its decision, the Service concluded that regardless of the  threats to the lizard on private lands, large populations of the lizard and  areas of its habitat were already protected under a conservation  agreement on public lands and that the species was sufficiently  protected from further threats. The court found that the Service should  have performed an analysis to determine whether the private lands  constituted “a significant portion of  range” and, if so,  whether the lizard was or would become extinct in that area. The court  remanded the case to the Service for those determinations.
Queen Charlotte goshawk. In 2002, an environmental group successfully  challenged the Service’s decision not to list the Queen Charlotte  goshawk, a forest-dwelling bird of prey found throughout North  America. In reaching its decision, the Service considered the  goshawk’s presence in southeast Alaska, the Queen Charlotte Islands,  and Vancouver Island in Canada.  The Service found that the goshawk  was not threatened or endangered in southeast Alaska or the Queen  Charlotte Islands, but the Service did not make a determination  regarding the goshawk’s status on Vancouver Island.  The Service  contended that the goshawk’s status on Vancouver Island did not matter  because that area did not represent a significant portion of the  goshawk’s range. The decision in this case upheld the Service’s  determination regarding southeast Alaska and the Queen Charlotte  Islands, finding that the Service had properly used the best available  science.  However, the decision went on to conclude that Vancouver  Island represented a significant portion of the goshawk’s range and that  the case should be remanded to the Service to determine whether the  goshawk was threatened or endangered on Vancouver Island.
section_title: The Service Has Delisted Few Species on the Basis of New Scientific Information Showing That Listing Was Not Warranted
paragraphs: In addition to removing recovered or extinct species from the list of  threatened or endangered species, the Service can also delist a species if  new information becomes available to show that protection under the act is  not warranted. Typically, listing a species generates widespread attention  to the species, additional funding for its study, and further research relating  to the species or its habitat. As additional information is gathered, the  Service or interested parties can initiate a delisting action if they believe  the species no longer qualifies for listing. The Service follows similar  rulemaking procedures to delist a species as for listing.
Since the inception of the Endangered Species Act, the Service has delisted  few species.  As of March 2003, the Service had delisted 25 threatened and  endangered domestic species of the more than 1,200 listed. Of the 25  delistings, 10 resulted from new information—4 because new information  showed the species to be more widespread or abundant than believed at  the time the species was listed, and 6 for taxonomic revisions, meaning that  the species was found not to be unique, but was a hybrid or simply a  population of another common species making it ineligible for listing  (see  table 1).  The remaining 15 delistings resulted from recovery efforts (7),  extinction (7), or an amendment to the act that made the species no longer  qualify for listing protection (1).
section_title: Concerns Remain Over the Adequacy of Scientific Information Used in Making Critical Habitat Decisions
paragraphs: While external reviews indicate that the Service bases most critical habitat  decisions on the best available science, concerns remain over the adequacy  of the information available to support the decisions.  Experts and others  we spoke to explained that the amount of scientific information available  on a species’ habitat needs often may be limited, affecting the Service’s  ability to adequately define the habitat area required.  Experts that peer  reviewed proposed critical habitat designations generally supported the  Service’s decisions, though many provided additional clarifications or  suggestions.  While the courts have overturned few critical habitat  decisions on the basis of inadequate science, scientific disagreements over  these decisions continue.
subsections: section_title: Experts and Others Express Concerns About Critical Habitat Decisions
paragraphs: Experts and others knowledgeable about the Endangered Species Act have  expressed concerns about the Service’s ability to designate critical habitat  for some listed species given the amount of information available on the  species’ habitat needs.  Unlike listing decisions, which are more  straightforward—requiring the Service to answer only a “yes or no”  question as to whether a species warrants listing—critical habitat decisions  often require more detailed knowledge about a species’ life history and  habitat needs and call for the Service to factor in the species’ special  management needs in addition to the economic impacts of the designation.   Service officials, experts, and others we spoke to agreed that the amount of  scientific information available is limited and often affects the Service’s  ability to adequately define the habitat essential to the species’  conservation.  While some interested parties stated that the Service  designated areas too broadly and included lands unsuitable for several  species, others said that the Service did not designate enough habitat for  some listed species.  According to Service officials, the resource and time  constraints under which the Service’s scientists work often preclude them  from collecting new information and, as a result, the information available  may limit their ability to produce adequate critical habitat designations 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. (See app. IV for information on  the nature of scientific controversy surrounding the Service’s decisions to  designate critical habitat for listed species.)  In order to increase the  amount of information available on which to base critical habitat  designations, the Service and others, including the National Research  Council, have recommended delaying designations until recovery plans are  developed.
section_title: Peer Reviewers Generally Support the Service’s Critical Habitat Designations, but Raise Concerns about the Areas Selected
paragraphs: The Service received 69 peer-review responses for 27 of the 37 critical  habitat decisions finalized during fiscal years 1999 through 2002; it received  no responses for 10 decisions (see app. III).  Reviewers providing  comments in 17 of these decisions unanimously agreed with the Service’s  scientific conclusions or otherwise indicated support for the critical habitat  designation. In six decisions, while not stating explicit agreement with the  Service’s use of science, the reviewer did not identify any major  inadequacies or reasons for substantially modifying the proposed habitat.
In another decision, the Service reported that five peer reviewers  supported the decision and one was “neutral.”  One or more peer reviewers  disagreed with the Service’s proposed critical habitat designations for the  remaining three decisions:    Zapata bladderpod. The one reviewer responding to the proposed  critical habitat designation of the Zapata bladderpod, a flowering plant  that grows in Texas, stated that the areas selected on state and private  lands were too small to support viable populations or the area was not  always suitable habitat for the species. The reviewer also said it was  premature to select those sites given the lack of information about the  species.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The one reviewer responding to the  proposed critical habitat designation for the cactus ferruginous pygmy- owl, a small bird found in the southwestern United States, disagreed  with the designation on the grounds that there were too many  unknowns about the species’ habitat requirements to support a  determination about its critical habitat.
Newcomb’s snail. Two of the six reviewers responding to the Service’s  proposed critical habitat determination for the Newcomb’s snail (found  only on the island of Kauai, Hawaii) disagreed with the proposed rule— the other four supported it. One of the reviewers who disagreed stated  that there was inadequate information to make a determination because  habitat requirements for the snail were limited to generalized  observations in the field and thus were speculative. The reviewer said  the designation did not identify the habitat features essential to the  conservation of the species and was premature until additional  biological information was obtained. Similarly, the other reviewer  objecting to the determination did so largely because of his  understanding that the process was based on few published scientific  studies, and much was still unknown about the species’ habitat  requirements.
Even though peer reviewers may have concurred with the Service’s critical  habitat designation, many provided clarifications or suggested  modifications.  We analyzed the peer reviewers’ responses for 16 of the 27  critical habitat decisions the Service made.  There were 35 peer-review  responses to these 16 decisions.  Nearly all of the reviewers provided  specific clarifications on information contained in the rule or suggestions  for altering the habitat area selected.  For instance, in many of the  responses, the reviewer agreed with the proposal in general, but stated that  additional lands should be included in the critical habitat designation and  cited scientific reasons for increasing habitat areas. In one decision, a  reviewer generally supporting the proposed critical habitat of the arroyo  toad (an endangered toad found in coastal and desert drainages in  California) identified specific areas where he believed the toad ranged  more widely and would therefore warrant additional critical habitat.  Another reviewer, generally supporting the proposed critical habitat for the  Great Lakes population of the piping plover (a small shorebird that occurs  across North America), identified sites she believed should be added to the  designation and areas she believed to be unsuitable for the species and  therefore should be excluded from the designation.
section_title: Courts Have Overturned Few Critical Habitat Decisions on the Basis of Inadequate Science
paragraphs: As with listing decisions, and due in part to the deference the courts grant  to the Service, most litigation has not directly challenged the Service’s use  of science in making critical habitat determinations.  Based on a review of  federal court cases decided during fiscal years 1999 through 2002, we  identified 11 cases in which a court issued an opinion regarding the  Service’s critical habitat decisions.  Most of these 11 cases dealt with  nonscience issues, such as the Service’s failure to designate critical habitat  for a listed species.  However, the courts overturned critical habitat  decisions on the basis of issues related to the use of scientific data in the  following two cases:    Rio Grande silvery minnow. In 2000, a federal court invalidated the  critical habitat of the Rio Grande silvery minnow based in part on  scientific grounds. Multiple groups, including the state of New Mexico,  challenged the designation of critical habitat for the silvery minnow, a  fish found exclusively in the Rio Grande River in the Southwest. The  critical habitat designation for this fish consisted of a 163-mile stretch of  the main stem of the Rio Grande River. The court ruled in favor of the  plaintiffs because it found that the Service’s final rule had failed to (1)  define with sufficient specificity what biological and physical features  were essential to the species’ survival and recovery and (2) indicate  where in each reach of the river such features existed. For example, the  court said that the Service’s statement in the rule regarding the  minnow’s need for “sufficient flowing water” provided vague  generalities that stated little more than what is required for any fish  species. As a result of this court ruling, the Service is in the process of  redesignating critical habitat for this species.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. In 2001, a court struck down the  critical habitat designation for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl  because, among other reasons, the designation was not supported by  the best available scientific data.  The final critical habitat for the  pygmy-owl, a small bird found in the southwestern United States,  consisted of over 700,000 acres of riparian and upland habitat in  Arizona.  The court noted that the determination of critical habitat is to  be made on the basis of the “best scientific data available” and that this  involves identifying geographic areas “essential to the conservation of  the species.”  The court then pointed out that systematic owl surveys  had not yet been completed over the entire potential habitat in Arizona,  and that the Service determined critical habitat by designating areas  where the pygmy-owls had been sighted, areas that it thought would be  consistent with the species’ known habitat, and all the land in between.   The court also pointed out that, in addition to the areas actually  occupied by the pygmy-owls, the Service had included areas where it  thought they could live.  The court appeared to conclude that, in order  to include areas that were not presently occupied, the Service should  have determined that such areas were in fact essential to the  conservation of the species.  Although the Service had already agreed to  reconsider the economic analysis used in the critical habitat  designation, the court concluded that a “broader reconsideration” of the  critical habitat designation was necessary.  The Service is in the process  of redesignating critical habitat for the pygmy-owl.
section_title: The Service Has Failed to Address Known Problems with the Critical Habitat Program
paragraphs: The Service’s critical habitat program currently faces a serious crisis that  extends well beyond the use of science in making decisions.  Litigation now  dominates the program, leading the Assistant Secretary for Fish and  Wildlife and Parks in the Department of the Interior to recently declare that  the system for designating critical habitat is “broken” because it provides  little conservation benefit while consuming significant resources.
A key court case in 1997 invalidated the Service’s position on when critical  habitat should be designated.  The Endangered Species Act generally  requires the Service to designate critical habitat for listed species unless  the Service determines it is “not prudent,” and the Service’s regulations  spell out that it is not prudent to designate critical habitat if doing so would  not be “beneficial to the species.”  As a result, prior to 1997, the Service  had designated critical habitat for only 113 of the 1,023 domestic species  that it had listed.  The Service reasoned that designating critical habitat did  not benefit the species because the benefits that critical habitat provided  duplicated those benefits provided by listing the species.  The 1997 court  case invalidated the Service’s reasoning, ruling that the Service’s  determination that it was not prudent to designate critical habitat for the  coastal California gnatcatcher, a songbird unique to coastal southern  California, was not justified.  One of the reasons that the Service  concluded that it was not prudent to designate critical habitat was because  it believed that such a designation would not appreciably benefit the  species because most populations of gnatcatchers were found on private  lands to which the act’s critical habitat protections would not apply.  The  court found that this reasoning improperly expanded what Congress had  intended to be a narrow exception to designating critical habitat.  The court  concluded that the Service had disregarded “the clear congressional intent  that the imprudence exception be a rare exception.”  Since then, court  orders and settlement agreements have compelled the Service to designate  critical habitat for species for which it had previously determined that it  was not prudent to do so.
Subsequently, a 2001 court case led the Service to reconsider some of its  critical habitat designations.  The case involved the requirement of the act  that the Service consider the economic impact of designating a particular  area as critical habitat.  According to the act, the Service may exclude areas  from critical habitat if it determines that the benefits of excluding the area  outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat unless  excluding it would result in the extinction of the species.  For example, in  1997, the Service designated critical habitat for the southwestern willow  flycatcher, a small bird that nests in riparian areas in the southwestern  United States.  Because the Service believed that designating critical  habitat would not result in additional restrictions on activities beyond  those resulting from listing the species, it reasoned that there would be no  significant economic impact associated with designating critical habitat for  the flycatcher.  However, the court disagreed.  It found that since the act  clearly barred the Service from considering economic impacts in listing  decisions, but required they be considered in critical habitat decisions, the  Service was not free to ignore the economic impacts of listing a species  when designating critical habitat for that species.  The court held that the  Service had to consider all of the economic impacts of a critical habitat  determination, regardless of whether those impacts were also attributable  to listing or other causes.  Since this decision was issued, court orders and  settlement agreements have prompted the Service to re-issue some critical  habitat decisions to comply with this standard.
Since these two court rulings, the Service’s critical habitat program has  become dominated by litigation.  Each critical habitat designation made  since 1997 has resulted from a court order or a settlement agreement, and  the Service expects that it will have to dedicate significant resources  through fiscal year 2008 to comply with existing court orders and  settlement agreements.  The department believes that this flood of  litigation over critical habitat designation is preventing the Service 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).  Service officials noted that there are  other court decisions that may cause additional problems for the program  in the future.
The Service has been aware of problems with its critical habitat program  for a number of years.  The Service noted significant problems with its  critical habitat program in 1997, and in 1999 it issued a Federal Register  notice announcing that its system for designating critical habitat was not  working and soliciting comments on its intention to develop policy or  guidance and/or to revise regulations or seek legislative corrections to  clarify the role of critical habitat in conserving endangered species.  In  particular, the Service stated its intention to consider when critical habitat  designation would provide additional protection beyond that provided by  listing.  The Service also announced its intention to streamline the process  for designating critical habitat to be more cost-effective and in line with the  amount of conservation benefit provided to the species.  In particular, the  Service declared that it needs to develop a much less labor-intensive  process for describing the areas proposed for designation as critical  habitat.  The Service also stated that it can streamline and make more cost- effective the process to conduct the economic analyses required to  designate critical habitat and that it can more efficiently conduct the  analyses required under the National Environmental Policy Act.  The  Service also noted that critical habitat litigation and related court orders  were consuming much of the resources devoted to listing and critical  habitat, and delaying other activities that it considered higher priority, such  as addressing petitions submitted by citizens, working with landowners on  conservation projects, and completing final actions to list species.   However, no additional guidance or revisions were issued, and the Service  continues to follow the same unworkable system.
The Department of the Interior recently echoed concerns with the Service’s  critical habitat program and the limited conservation benefit it provides to  species.  In April 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and  Parks testified before Congress on the critical habitat program, stating that  it is “broken” and in “chaos.”  He noted that litigation support is consuming  valuable resources and that complying with court orders and settlement  agreements has sharply reduced the Service’s ability to prioritize its listing  and critical habitat actions.  Service scientists working in field offices  expressed similar concerns to us about the critical habitat program, raising  questions about the purpose of critical habitat and the designation process.   An attorney in the Solicitor’s office told us that guidance would improve the  Service’s critical habitat decisions and make the decisions more defensible  in court in the future.
Despite the long-standing concerns over the role and implementation of the  critical habitat program, the Service has done little to resolve them.  In a  report issued in June 2002, we recognized the impact that litigation was  having on the critical habitat program and recommended that the Service  expedite its efforts to develop guidance on designating critical habitat for  listed species to help reduce the influence of future litigation.  Better  guidance would help reduce the number of legal challenges to the Service’s  critical habitat designations and allow the Service to better withstand legal  challenges when they arise.  While the Service agreed with our  recommendation, it responded that work on critical habitat guidance had  been delayed pending Service efforts to complete higher priority tasks,  including court orders to complete listing and critical habitat decisions and  did not commit to a schedule for issuing the guidance.  An official with  Interior’s Solicitor’s office told us that one factor limiting the agency’s  ability to complete these tasks is the Service’s inability to devote significant  listing and critical habitat resources to policy initiatives without risking  contempt of court because such action would force the agency to divert  resources away from activities required to comply with court orders.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: The Service’s critical habitat program faces a serious crisis because of  extensive litigation that is consuming significant program resources.  The  Service has recognized this crisis for many years but has done little to  address it.  Accordingly, in June 2002, we recommended that the Service  expedite its efforts to develop guidance on designating critical habitat to  reduce the influence of future litigation.  While the Service agreed with our  recommendation, it has done little to develop this guidance.  Service  officials complain that they are locked in a vicious cycle, precluded from  developing the guidance for fear of being held in contempt of court for  diverting resources away from activities already required by existing court  orders.  While the Service clearly faces a dilemma, it is imperative that it  clarify the role of critical habitat and develop guidance for how and when it  should be designated, and seek regulatory and/or legislative changes that  may be necessary to provide threatened and endangered species with the  greatest conservation benefit in the most cost-effective manner.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: Because the Service’s critical habitat program faces serious challenges, we  recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the Service to provide  clear strategic direction for the critical habitat program, within a specified  time frame, by clarifying the role of critical habitat and how and when it  should be designated, and recommending policy/guidance, regulatory,  and/or legislative changes necessary to provide the greatest conservation  benefit to threatened and endangered species in the most cost-effective  manner.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report.  The  department did not provide comments on the draft.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of the Interior and other interested parties.  We also will make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report assesses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s consideration and  use of science in its decisions to list species as threatened or endangered  and to designate critical habitat.  Specifically, we were asked to review the  extent to which (1) the Service’s policies and practices ensure that listing  and critical habitat decisions are based on the best available science and  (2) outside reviewers have supported the scientific data and conclusions  that the Service uses to make listing and critical habitat decisions.  In no  instance did we attempt to evaluate scientific data and render an opinion.  For this evaluation, we define “science” as the collection and interpretation  of biological information, such as the identification of a species and its  habitat needs.  This definition does not include the legal policies and  definitions found in the law or used to implement or interpret the  Endangered Species Act.  However, we acknowledge that there is not  always a clear distinction between the interpretation of biological  information and the policies and definitions used to interpret the act.
In meeting our first objective, we examined the Service’s decision-making  process to determine the extent to which it would likely lead to decisions  based on the best available science.  We reviewed the Service’s policies and  procedures related to how it makes these decisions and discussed the  process and procedures with key officials at the Service’s headquarters and  with staff in the Service’s regional and field offices to determine their  knowledge of the process and how they implemented it.  We also spoke  with peer-review experts and examined the literature on the processes that  organizations use to peer review their decisions and products to assess the  reasonableness of the Service’s policy to peer review proposed listing and  critical habitat decisions.
In meeting both objectives, we obtained from the Service a list of the  decisions to list species and designate critical habitat that the Service  finalized during fiscal years 1999 through 2002.  To verify the completeness  of the provided list of decisions, we compared it with a second independent  database maintained by the Service.  We identified one decision that was  not on the original list provided to us by the Service.  We included that  decision in our analysis.  Based on this information, we identified 101 final  decisions to list or designate critical habitat that were published in the  Federal Register during fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
We examined the Federal Register notices for the 101 decisions to  determine (1) the extent to which the Service complied with its peer-review  policy to request at least three peer reviewers to review each decision, (2)  the number that reviewed each decision, and (3) whether or not the  reviewer(s) supported the decision.  In 61 of the 101 decisions, we  extracted this information from the Federal Register.  For the remaining 40  decisions, we contacted the 18 field offices responsible for the decisions  and requested that they provide the peer-review documentation, including  copies of the peer reviewers’ responses.  The Service provided us with the  missing information in all but seven instances; in five of those instances  partial information was available.
To assess the accuracy of the information reported in the Federal Register  notices, we requested that the Service provide documentation for the peer- review information, including peer reviewers’ responses, for 8 of the 61  decisions for which complete information was available in the Federal  Register notice.  We selected these 8 decisions in the following way.  In  order to minimize the burden on the Service’s field staff, we limited our  universe to the decisions that were the responsibility of the18 field offices  that we already intended to contact.  These offices were responsible for 48  of the 61 decisions for which there was complete information in the  Federal Register notice.  We then randomly chose 1 decision from each of  the three offices with the most decisions.  Collectively these offices were  responsible for 25 of the 48 decisions.   We also randomly chose 5 of the  remaining 23 decisions.  We compared the documentation provided to us  with the information in the corresponding Federal Register notices.  We  found no discrepancies.  However, we did find minor discrepancies  between other Federal Register notices and the documentation the Service  provided to us.  We reconciled these discrepancies. Additionally, based on a  limited review, we found the Service’s procedures reasonable for ensuring  that its database contains accurate information.  For example, the Service  regularly samples data recently added to the database for accuracy.  We did  not determine the extent to which any of the Service’s final decisions  reflected the comments and opinions of the peer reviewers.
In addition to determining whether peer reviewers supported the decision  they reviewed, we performed a content analysis on the peer-review  responses for 16 critical habitat decisions to more fully characterize the  opinions of the peer reviewers.  We chose to perform a content analysis on  the responses to critical habitat decisions because these decisions are  open-ended, requiring the Service to determine how much critical habitat  to designate and where that habitat should be located.  There were 35 peer- review responses for these 16 decisions.
To determine how well the Service’s listing and critical habitat decisions  are withstanding legal challenges to the science supporting those  decisions, we used common legal research methods to identify federal  court cases related to the Service’s listing and critical habitat decisions.  We  identified and reviewed 25 cases that were decided during fiscal years 1999  through 2002 that involved a challenge to a Service listing decision and/or  critical habitat decision, and in which the court rendered a decision on the  listing or critical habitat issue.
To determine the extent to which the Service has delisted species because  new scientific information surfaced indicating that listing was not  originally warranted, we used information from the Service’s publicly  accessible database.  We included in our analysis all decisions to delist  species from the inception of the act through March 2003. We compared  this information with information published in the Federal Register.  We  found no discrepancies.
Finally, to get a fuller understanding of the degree of scientific controversy  regarding listing and critical habitat decisions, we solicited the opinions of  experts and others and reviewed published studies.  To illustrate the nature  of scientific controversy regarding listing and critical habitat decisions, we  developed a list of decisions for which there was some degree of scientific  controversy. We developed this list by asking experts in the private,  academic, government, and nonprofit sectors spanning the political  spectrum to identify recent decisions that were particularly controversial  due to scientific disagreements and briefly explain the nature of the  controversy.  We limited our analysis to decisions finalized during fiscal  years 1993 through 2002.  In addition, we asked each expert for the names  of other experts who could help us develop our list.  We stopped contacting  experts when we began to get repetitive responses.  We then identified  common issues related to the controversies to characterize the types of  disagreements involved with each of the decisions.  We based this on the  information provided by the experts and information published in the  Federal Register.  Finally, we presented the list of decisions and related  information to officials at the Service and at the National Academy of  Sciences for their opinions on the list of decisions and how we  characterized them.  The officials generally agreed with the information we  presented.
Additionally, in the course of our work, it became apparent that litigation  was dominating the Service’s critical habitat program, and we discuss these  circumstances in our report.  Specifically, we describe how several key  court cases are affecting the program.
We performed our work from September 2002 through June 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Overview of The Endangered Species Act
paragraphs: The Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress to provide a means to  conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species  depend and to conserve and recover imperiled species.  The act was passed  in 1973 and replaced earlier laws, which provided for a list of endangered  species but gave them little meaningful protection.  While significant  amendments were enacted in 1978, 1982, and 1988, the overall framework  of the act has remained essentially unchanged.  The Department of the  Interior delegated its responsibility for the act to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service (Service), which established an endangered species program to  implement the requirements of the act.  The Service is responsible for all  land-dwelling species, freshwater species, some marine mammals, and  migratory birds.  The Department of Commerce, which has delegated its  responsibility to the National Marine Fisheries Service, is responsible for  implementing the act for marine species including anadromous (both  freshwater and ocean dwelling) fish.
The act provides numerous provisions to protect and recover species at  risk of extinction.  However, before a plant or animal species is eligible to  benefit from most of these provisions, it must first be added to the Federal  List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.  Once on the list,  key provisions of the act, including critical habitat, recovery plans,  consultations with federal agencies, and habitat conservation plans, are  designed to assist in recovering the species so that it can then be removed  from the list.
subsections: section_title: Listing Species as Endangered or Threatened
paragraphs: Under the act, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened.   An endangered species is any species of animal or plant that is in danger of  extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.  A threatened  species is any species of animal or plant that is likely to become  endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant  portion of its range.  All species of plants and animals (except pest insects)  are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened.  As of June 2003, there  were a total of 1,821 listed species; 1,504 species on the endangered species  list, 987 of which occur in the United States; and 317 threatened species,  276 of which occur in the United States.
The decision to list a species must be based solely on the best available  scientific and commercial data.  Using these data, the Service must  determine whether a species should be listed by analyzing its status based  on the following factors: (1) current or threatened destruction,  modification, or curtailment of a species habitat or range; (2) over  utilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or  educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing  regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting  the species’ continued existence.  The Service follows a rigorous process to  determine whether to list a species.  A final decision to list a species is  published in the Federal Register.
The Service may issue emergency regulations to list a species without  complying with the normal regulatory process if it finds that an emergency  poses a significant risk to the well-being of any species.  Emergency  regulations take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal  Register and are effective for 240 days.
The Service also maintains a list of candidate species.  Candidate species  are species for which substantial information is available to support a  listing proposal, but have not yet been proposed for listing.  The Service  maintains this list for a variety of reasons, including (1) to provide advance  knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental  planners and developers, (2) to solicit input from interested parties to  identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the  act or additional species that may require the act’s protections, and (3) to  solicit information needed to prioritize the order in which species will be  proposed for listing.  The Service is required to publish a notice of review  annually in the Federal Register to solicit new information on the status of  candidate species.  The Service works with parties, such as states and  private partners, to carry out conservation actions—often called Candidate  Conservation Agreements—for candidate species to prevent their further  decline and possibly eliminate the need to list them as endangered or  threatened.  As of June 2003, there were 251 candidate species, many of  which have held that status for more than a decade.
section_title: Critical Habitat
paragraphs: The Service is generally required to designate critical habitat at the time a  species is listed as endangered or threatened.  Critical habitat is the  specific geographic area essential for the conservation of a threatened or  endangered species and that may require special management  considerations and protection.  Critical habitat contains physical and  biological habitat features such as: (1) space for individual and population  growth and for normal behavior; (2) cover or shelter, food, water, air, light,  minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) sites for  breeding and rearing offspring; and (4) habitats that are protected from  disturbances or are representative of the historic geographical and  ecological distributions of a species.  Critical habitat may also include  areas not occupied by the species at the time of listing but that are essential  to the conservation and recovery of the species.  Unlike the decision to list  a species as endangered or threatened, a final designation of critical habitat  is to be made on the basis of not only the best scientific data available but  also taking into consideration the economic and other effects of making the  decision.  If the benefits of excluding an area outweigh the benefits of  including it, the Service may exclude an area from critical habitat, unless  the exclusion would result in the extinction of the species.
The Service may take up to an additional year after listing a species to  designate critical habitat if it finds that critical habitat is “not  determinable.”  Critical habitat is not determinable when information  sufficient to perform the required analyses of the impacts of the  designation of critical habitat is lacking or the biological needs of the  species are not sufficiently known to permit identification of an area as  critical habitat.  The Service does not designate critical habitat if it  determines that doing so would be “not prudent.”  It would not be prudent  to designate critical habitat if (1) identifying the habitat is expected to  increase the threat to the species or (2) designating an area as critical  habitat is not expected to benefit the species.
section_title: Recovery Plans
paragraphs: Once a species is listed, the act requires the Service to develop a recovery  plan for the species.  Recovery plans identify, justify, and schedule the  research and management actions necessary to reverse the decline of a  species and ensure its long-term survival.  Recovery plans must be  developed for all listed species, unless such a plan would not benefit the  species.  Although the act does not specify time frames for developing or  implementing the recovery plan or for recovering the species, the Service  has as a goal of developing recovery plans within 1 year and having  approved plans within 2½ years of a species’ listing.  The Service solicits  comments from state and federal agencies, experts and the public on draft  recovery plans during a formal public comment period announced in the  Federal Register.  The Service periodically reviews approved recovery  plans to determine if updates or revisions are needed.  As of June 2003,  1000 species had approved recovery plans.
section_title: Consultations with Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Federal agencies are required to consult with the Service if their actions  may affect listed species.  The goal of the consultation process is to identify  and resolve conflicts between the protection and enhancement of listed  species and proposed federal actions.  The act requires that all federal  agencies consult with the Service to ensure that any activities agencies  permit, fund, or conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued  existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat.   Federal agencies may informally consult with the Service to determine  whether their actions may affect listed species and must proceed to formal  consultations once they determine that their actions may adversely affect a  listed species or its habitat.  The act requires a formal consultation to be  completed in 90 days, unless the Service and the federal agency mutually  agree to an extension, with the applicant’s consent.  The Service is to issue  a “biological opinion” within 45 days of the conclusion of formal  consultation that reviews the potential effects of the proposed action on  listed species and/or critical habitat.  The Service must base the biological  opinion on the best available biological information.  If the Service finds  that the action would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species’  survival and recovery, it issues a jeopardy biological opinion.  Jeopardy  opinions include reasonable and prudent alternatives that define  modifications to the agency’s proposed action that enable it to continue  and still be consistent with the act’s requirements for protecting species.  Following the issuance of the biological opinion, the federal agency  determines whether it will comply with the opinion or seek an exemption  from the act’s requirements.
Proposed federal agency actions that have been determined to cause  jeopardy to any listed species may receive an exemption from the act by  the Federal Endangered Species Committee (also referred to as the “God  Squad”).  The Endangered Species Committee is comprised of seven  members:  the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army,  Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Administrator of the  Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of the Interior, the  Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,  and one individual from the affected state.  An exemption is granted if at  least five members of the Endangered Species Committee determine that,  among other things, the action is of regional or national significance, that  the benefits of the action clearly outweigh the benefits of conserving the  species, and that there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the  action.  The Endangered Species Committee has been convened only three  times since its creation in 1978—the Tellico Dam for the snail darter fish in  Tennessee, the Grayrocks Dam in Wyoming for the whooping crane, and  Bureau of Land Management (BLM) timber sales for the spotted owl in  Oregon.  Only two exemptions were granted.  One was in regard to the  Grayrocks dam and the other was to approve 13 timber sales sought by  BLM (which was withdrawn before the completion of appeals).  The Tellico  dam application was denied but was later allowed by Congress to proceed.   In addition, three other applications were received but were subsequently  dismissed or withdrawn before deliberations took place.
section_title: Habitat Conservation Plans
paragraphs: The act generally prohibits any person from “taking” an animal species  listed as endangered.  “Taking” or “take” means to harass, harm, pursue,  hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect a listed species, and under  Service guidelines, includes the destruction of the species’ habitat.   However, in 1982, Congress amended the act to include a process whereby  the Service may issue permits that allow private individuals to incidentally  take listed species.  Incidental take is the take of any federally listed  species that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful  activities.  Permit applicants are required to submit a habitat conservation  plan, which includes measures the applicant will take to minimize and  mitigate the impacts that may result from the taking.  The Service is  required to publish a notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments  from interested parties on each application for a permit and its  accompanying habitat conservation plan.  As of April 2003, 416 habitat  conservation plans have been approved.  The act prohibits the Service from  issuing a permit if doing so would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the  survival and recovery of the species in the wild.  The incidental taking of a  listed species resulting from federal agency actions may also be allowed  under the act and would be addressed through the consultation process.
section_title: Peer Reviewers’ Responses to Listing and Critical Habitat Decisions for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2002
paragraphs: Apr. 30,  2001 Apr. 15,  2002 Apr. 23,  2002 3 The Service’s peer review policy does not apply to this decision because its most recent comment  period opened before the policy became effective.
Documentation unavailable.
section_title: The Nature of Scientific Controversy Surrounding Listing and Critical Habitat Decisions
paragraphs: Based on discussions with Service officials, experts, and others  knowledgeable about the Endangered Species Act, we found that several  scientific disagreements over Service listing decisions have surfaced in  recent years—mostly concerning whether the amount of information  available at the time a decision is made suffices as a basis for a decision.   Regarding critical habitat decisions, we found there has been scientific  controversy surrounding whether the areas chosen as critical habitat is  sufficiently defined or the overall information used to support the  designation is adequate.
subsections: section_title: Listing
paragraphs: Although we found that scientific disagreements surrounding listing  decisions are not widespread, some of the controversy in recent years can  be categorized as “science-related.” Experts and others working with the  Endangered Species Act that we spoke with identified 11 species where  there was significant scientific controversy surrounding the decisions to  list the species.  Our discussions with these individuals and a review of  related Federal Register notices revealed that the most common scientific  disagreements hinge on whether enough information was available to  determine (1) whether the plants or animals under consideration qualified  as a “species” as defined by the act, (2) the status of the species, or (3) the  degree of threat that the species faces.
Critics of some listing decisions argued that the Service lacked information  to determine whether the entity in question met the definition of a  “species.”  The act defines a species as including “any subspecies of fish or  wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of  vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” There is  general agreement within the scientific community as to what constitutes a  species and this has not been a major source of controversy in most listing  decisions. Disagreements typically arise over whether entities that are  genetically, morphologically, or behaviorally distinct, but not distinct  enough to merit the rank of species; qualify for protection as a distinct  population segment (DPS).  Under Service policy, to be identified as a DPS,  a population segment must be both discrete and significant. In order to be  discrete, the population must be markedly separate from other populations  as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral  factors.  If a population segment is considered discrete, its biological and  ecological significance will then be considered.  This consideration would  include such factors as evidence that the loss of the population would  result in a significant gap in the range of a species.
For example, disagreement surrounded the decision to list the population  of the Sonoma County California tiger salamander, a large terrestrial  salamander that is native to California.  According to critics of the listing  decision, the results of genetic testing did not show the salamander to be  distinct, or discrete, from other populations of the California tiger  salamander and therefore the population did not qualify as a DPS. The  Service disagreed with the critics’ interpretation of the data, stating that it  believed the data referred to by the critics show the salamander to be  distinct from other populations.  The Service said that additional sampling  and genetic work provided further substantial evidence of the genetic  discreteness of the population. Additionally, the Service relied on the  salamander’s geographic isolation in making a determination that the  population qualified for protection as a DPS.
Service policy also allows international governmental boundaries that  delineate differences in the management of the species or its habitat to be  used to determine if a species meets the discrete criterion. Some critics  have argued against using international boundaries as a criterion to define  a DPS.  For example, critics of the decision to list the Arizona population  segment of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl stated that the Service had  no biological or regulatory authority to rely on international boundaries to  draw a distinct population segment. The pygmy-owl is a small bird that  occurs in the southwestern United States extending south into Mexico.
The Service recognizes that using international boundaries as a measure of  discreteness may introduce a nonbiological element to the recognition of a  distinct population segment. However, in its policy, the Service determined  that it is reasonable to recognize units delimited by international  boundaries when these units coincide with differences in the management,  status, or exploitation of a species. In the case of the pygmy-owl, the  Service reported the status of the owl in the United States is different from  that in Mexico, and Arizona is the only area within which the government  of the United States can affect protection and recovery for the species, so it  was appropriate to protect the pygmy-owl as a DPS.
In its review of science and the Endangered Species Act, the National  Research Council found that although it may be appropriate to delineate  population segments based on political boundaries, there are no scientific  reasons to do so as these boundaries often do not always coincide with  major natural geographic boundaries. To provide more scientific  objectivity in identifying distinct population segments, the Council  recommended that the Service define a distinct population segment based  solely on scientific grounds and limit the definition to segments of  biological diversity containing the potential for a unique evolutionary  future. Such segments would be determined by looking at such factors as a  population’s morphology (or physical appearance), behavior, genetics and  geographical separation or isolation from other populations.  Service  officials agree that the inclusion of international boundaries in determining  whether a population segment is discrete is sometimes undertaken as a  matter of policy rather than science. However, the Service believes that  using international borders is appropriate and necessary to comply with  congressional intent.  When there are international boundaries that  coincide with differences in the management, status, or exploitation of a  species, as described above, the Service stated that it is appropriate to  recognize these borders when making a listing determination.
Scientific disagreement also surrounds the status of a species and the  degree to which identified threats imperil it. When making a listing  determination, the Service must evaluate a species’ status, such as where it  occurs or its population numbers, and the degree of threat it faces. The  Service can determine that a species is threatened or endangered because  of any of several factors such as the destruction of habitat, disease or  predation, or other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’  survival. Several of the scientific disputes that we encountered centered on  how widespread the species in question is or how intense or significant the  threats to the species are.  For example, state agencies commenting on the  proposal to list the Canada lynx said that the rule failed to demonstrate  there were significant reductions to the species’ population. Critics of the  rule said that the scientific information—which was largely in the form of  one comprehensive report—failed to assess lynx population size, status,  and trends. The Service agreed that the available information concerning  lynx population status, trends, and historic range is limited. However, after  reviewing historic and current records for both Canada and the United  States, sightings and track records, personal communications with lynx,  hare, and forest ecology experts, and a review of all available literature, the  Service said it was able to make several conclusions about the status of the  lynx and found that it warranted listing as threatened.
Additionally, critics of the proposal to list the lynx claimed that the Service  failed to demonstrate significant threats to the lynx’s survival. For example,  some stated that there is little evidence to support claims that current  management practices, including timber harvesting and human access,  adversely affect the lynx. While the Service acknowledged the lack of  quantifiable information to determine whether some of the possible threats  have or would have resulted in lynx declines, it concluded that the factor  threatening lynx in the contiguous United States is the lack of guidance in  existing federal land management plans for conservation of lynx and lynx  habitat.
Service officials told us that it is important to consider both the threats and  the status of the species when making a listing determination. For example,  if only a species’ population numbers were considered, it might appear to  be abundant. Once the threats are factored in, however, the species might  be threatened or endangered. On the other hand, if the species numbers are  low but the species faces no considerable threats, it may not warrant  protection under the act.
section_title: Critical Habitat
paragraphs: Experts and others we spoke to identified 10 species where there was  scientific controversy concerning the decision to designate critical habitat  for them.  For example, one concern is whether the area chosen as critical  habitat is sufficiently defined or the overall information used to support the  designation is adequate.  Most of the identified species are widespread or  occur in rapidly developing areas, such as southern California.
One of the major sources of disagreement is the way in which the Service  identifies land to be included in critical habitat.  The Service is required to  designate as critical habitat those areas that it deems essential to a species’  conservation and that may require special management considerations and  protection. To reach this conclusion, the Service describes the species’  habitat needs for conservation, or the species’ “primary constituent  elements,” such as nesting or spawning grounds, feeding sites, or areas  with specific geologic features or soil types. The Service’s regulations also  require the delineation of critical habitat using reference points and lines as  found on standard topographic maps of the area. The Service uses written  descriptions and/or maps to outline the areas it considers critical habitat  for a listed species. In some cases, when maps are used to outline the area,  parts of the area that fall within the mapped boundaries do not contain the  primary constituent elements defined by the Service. For example, building  structures, roads, or other major structures, such as an airport, may fall  within the mapped boundaries of critical habitat, but are not suitable  habitat. The Service maintains that these areas would not be considered  critical habitat because they do not contain the primary constituent  elements needed by the species. The Service stated that the precise  mapping of critical habitat boundaries is impractical or impossible because  the legal descriptions for these precise boundaries would be unwieldy.
The scientific controversy surrounding many of the critical habitat  proposals that we reviewed stems from disagreement or confusion over  which areas within the land outlined by the Service would count as critical  habitat. Critics responding to these proposed rules often complained that  the Service’s definitions of primary constituent elements were vague or too  broad to be useful. Additionally, several critics found the Service’s  assertion that only areas containing primary constituent elements would be  considered critical habitat to be confusing, noting that it did not allow for a  discrete boundary.  In some instances, landowners voiced concerns that  their property fell within proposed critical habitat boundaries even though  the land did not seem to contain the primary constituent elements. For  example, critics of the proposed critical habitat of the California red-legged  frog stated that the Service’s description of the critical habitat was vague  and did not specifically identify the locations of the frog’s habitat.
Critics of the rule stated that the proposal was confusing and that  landowners would be forced to survey for the frog when undertaking a  project.  Such an action, they contended, is improper because it places the  onus on private landowners to make sure their land does not contain  critical habitat. The Service stated that due to the mapping unit it used it  was not able to exclude all nonessential lands, such as roads. According to  the Service, because these areas do not contain the primary constituent  elements, federal agencies would not be required to consult the Service  before taking action.
We also identified scientific disagreement stemming from designations  made for species that require dynamic habitats. Designating critical habitat,  which requires selecting a fixed habitat area, can be particularly difficult  when a listed species may require a habitat that is dynamic, or changing, in  nature. For example, lands that have been burned, cleared, or otherwise  disturbed may be essential to a species or may be important for only  certain periods of a species’ life cycle. Many landscapes change because of  natural causes, such as the age and make-up of a forest, and therefore it  may be difficult to designate one particular area as habitat because the area  may change over time, causing a change in the value of the habitat for the  listed species. For example, scientific disagreement surrounded the critical  habitat designation of the Southwestern willow flycatcher partly because  of the bird’s changing habitat requirements. Comments received on the  proposed critical habitat rule stated that because riparian habitats are in a  constant state of change, any boundaries defined as critical habitat would  also be subject to change. Further, according to critics, the boundaries  described by the Service did not meet regulatory requirements because  they were difficult to interpret and could change seasonally. In the final  rule designating critical habitat, the Service agreed that its original  boundaries of critical habitat did not incorporate the dynamic nature of  riparian systems. To resolve this issue, the Service stated that the final  boundaries would be established in accordance with the 100-year flood  zone, which would include most changes in stream flow and most seasonal  changes.
In addition to controversy surrounding the identification of specific areas  for critical habitat, many critics of the proposed rules that we reviewed  argued that the Service had insufficient information on which to base its  determination and that the Service should not designate critical habitat  until the habitat requirements of the species could be better defined. Other  critics objected to the Service’s use of unpublished or otherwise  unavailable data, stating that this type of information is inadequate to  support critical habitat designations. Service officials said that they have  been required to complete critical habitat decisions under short time  frames because of court-imposed deadlines. According to Service officials,  given the resource and time constraints under which Service scientists  work, scientists are often unable to collect new information and agree that  the information available may be limited. Thus, the Service relies on both  unpublished and published information and will use whatever scientific  information it deems credible to help make a determination.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Bob Crystal, Charlie Egan,  Doreen Stolzenberg Feldman, Alyssa M. Hundrup, Nathan Morris, and Judy  Pagano made key contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web  site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to  e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs