Endangered Species Act
Successes and Challenges in Agency Collaboration and the Use of Scientific Information in the Decision Making Process Gao ID: GAO-05-732T May 19, 2005The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. This law currently protects more than 1,260 animal and plant species. Within the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service implements and enforces the act. In addition, all federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Land Management, must ensure that their activities do not jeopardize a protected species' continued existence or adversely modify or destroy habitat that has been designated as critical to its survival. The Endangered Species Act and its implementation can be controversial when there are conflicting uses for a natural resource as, for example, when timber on federal lands is both habitat for endangered and threatened species and a valuable commodity to be harvested. Conflicts also occur over the adequacy or interpretation of scientific information in making species protection decisions. GAO has issued numerous reports on the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. This testimony is based primarily on four of these reports and addresses (1) collaboration among federal agencies to conserve threatened and endangered species and (2) utilization of scientific information by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We have found that effective agency collaboration can reduce conflict over competing uses of natural resources and improve agencies' abilities to protect species while carrying out other mission-related activities. While we have noted several instances of effective interagency cooperation, we have also discovered that agencies could be doing more to work together to find effective species protections. For example, at one military facility, Air Force officials worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service and others to entice the endangered Sonoran pronghorn--a species similar in appearance to antelope--away from military training areas. As a result, the agencies were able to minimize the impact of species protections on training exercises. Previously, Air Force officials had reported that 32 percent of their live-fire missions were either cancelled or moved due to the presence of the pronghorn. However, we have found that there are obstacles to further agency collaboration that need to be addressed. We have found that the Fish and Wildlife Service generally used the best available information in key endangered species decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research into ongoing species management decisions. For example, since the Bureau of Land Management eliminated sheep grazing on more than 800,000 acres in tortoise habitat in California, neither the Bureau or the Fish and Wildlife Service had ensured that necessary research was conducted to assess whether this action had benefited the tortoise. Unless managers link research findings to recovery actions, they cannot develop a scientific basis to make decisions about whether land use restrictions--such as limiting grazing or other activities in tortoise habitat--should remain unchanged, be strengthened, or whether alternative actions are more appropriate. Developing such information is important as some of the restrictions imposed to protect the tortoise have been controversial because of their broad impact and some affected by the restrictions have questioned whether they are necessary for the tortoise's recovery.
GAO-05-732T, Endangered Species Act: Successes and Challenges in Agency Collaboration and the Use of Scientific Information in the Decision Making Process
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-732T
entitled 'Endangered Species Act: Successes and Challenges in Agency
Collaboration and the Use of Scientific Information in the Decision
Making Process' which was released on May 19, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, United States Senate:
For Release on Delivery, 9:30am, Thursday, May 19, 2005:
Endangered Species Act:
Successes and Challenges in Agency Collaboration and the Use of
Scientific Information in the Decision Making Process:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-05-732T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-732T, a report to the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United
States Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. This law
currently protects more than 1,260 animal and plant species. Within the
Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service implements
and enforces the act. In addition, all federal agencies, such as the
Department of Defense and the Bureau of Land Management, must ensure
that their activities do not jeopardize a protected species‘ continued
existence or adversely modify or destroy habitat that has been
designated as critical to its survival.
The Endangered Species Act and its implementation can be controversial
when there are conflicting uses for a natural resource as, for example,
when timber on federal lands is both habitat for endangered and
threatened species and a valuable commodity to be harvested. Conflicts
also occur over the adequacy or interpretation of scientific
information in making species protection decisions.
GAO has issued numerous reports on the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act. This testimony is based primarily on four of these reports
and addresses (1) collaboration among federal agencies to conserve
threatened and endangered species and (2) utilization of scientific
information by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
What GAO Found:
We have found that effective agency collaboration can reduce conflict
over competing uses of natural resources and improve agencies‘
abilities to protect species while carrying out other mission-related
activities. While we have noted several instances of effective
interagency cooperation, we have also discovered that agencies could be
doing more to work together to find effective species protections. For
example, at one military facility, Air Force officials worked with the
Fish and Wildlife Service and others to entice the endangered Sonoran
pronghorn”a species similar in appearance to antelope”away from
military training areas. As a result, the agencies were able to
minimize the impact of species protections on training exercises.
Previously, Air Force officials had reported that 32 percent of their
live-fire missions were either cancelled or moved due to the presence
of the pronghorn. However, we have found that there are obstacles to
further agency collaboration that need to be addressed.
We have found that the Fish and Wildlife Service generally used the
best available information in key endangered species decisions,
although the agency was not always integrating new research into
ongoing species management decisions. For example, since the Bureau of
Land Management eliminated sheep grazing on more than 800,000 acres in
tortoise habitat in California, neither the Bureau or the Fish and
Wildlife Service had ensured that necessary research was conducted to
assess whether this action had benefited the tortoise. Unless managers
link research findings to recovery actions, they cannot develop a
scientific basis to make decisions about whether land use
restrictions”such as limiting grazing or other activities in tortoise
habitat”should remain unchanged, be strengthened, or whether
alternative actions are more appropriate. Developing such information
is important as some of the restrictions imposed to protect the
tortoise have been controversial because of their broad impact and some
affected by the restrictions have questioned whether they are necessary
for the tortoise‘s recovery.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-732T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work related to the
Endangered Species Act. As you know, the purpose of the act is to
conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon
which they depend. This law currently protects more than 1,260 animal
and plant species. Under the act, no one may "take" a protected
species, which is defined as harming, harassing, pursuing, shooting,
wounding, killing, trapping, hunting, capturing, or collecting, or
attempting any such conduct. In addition, federal agencies and
federally authorized activities may not jeopardize a species' continued
existence or adversely modify habitat deemed critical for a species'
survival. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--collectively referred to as the
Services--are responsible for working with other federal agencies,
tribal, state, and local governments, private companies, and citizens
to ensure that species are appropriately protected. In addition, all
federal agencies are directed by the act to utilize their authorities
to conserve threatened and endangered species.
The act requires FWS and NMFS to list as endangered any species facing
extinction and to list as threatened any species likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future. When a species is listed, the act
also generally requires the agencies to designate critical habitat--
habitat essential to a species' conservation--because the loss of
habitat is often the principal cause of species decline. FWS and NMFS
are also required to develop a plan to recover the listed species to
the point that they are no longer endangered or threatened, an
achievement marked by their removal, or delisting, from the list of
endangered or threatened species.
The act's success in protecting species depends on one's point of view.
Some believe it has been successful because in the face of chronic
underfunding only 9 species have gone extinct since the act's
inception, others say it has been a failure because only 9 species have
been recovered. Advocates on both sides of the argument would likely
agree, however, that the Endangered Species Act and its implementation
have served as lightning rods in the ongoing national debate concerning
the tradeoffs that must often be made between economic, social, and
environmental values. The tradeoffs required to implement the act were
vividly apparent in 1978, when the Supreme Court ruled that
construction of the Tellico Dam could not be completed because doing so
would jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered snail
darter--a species of fish.[Footnote 1] The dam, which has since been
completed,[Footnote 2] is located on the Little Tennessee River and
provides flood control, hydropower, and water supply. In this case, the
Court ruled that the Endangered Species Act explicitly prohibits
activities that would jeopardize the continued existence of an
endangered species or result in the destruction or modification of its
habitat, and stated that the act represents a congressional decision to
require agencies to give greater priority to the protection of
endangered species than to their other missions. Under the Court's
decision, federal agencies generally are prohibited from authorizing,
funding, or carrying out actions, such as dam construction, permitting
timber harvesting and livestock grazing, and wetland dredging, if doing
so would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species or destroy or adversely modify their critical
habitats.
The legacy of this decision continues to this day as federal agencies
struggle to balance their obligation to protect species and carry out
other mission-related activities that often involve ensuring
industries, ranchers, farmers, recreational enthusiasts, tourists, and
others, appropriate access to and use of the very natural resources on
which those species depend. One prominent recent example is the
federally-operated Klamath Project--dams, reservoirs, and associated
facilities--that sits on the California-Oregon border. Here, under
extreme drought conditions, several federal agencies--including the
Services and the Bureau of Reclamation--are trying to balance the water
needs of irrigators and others who receive water from the project, and
threatened and endangered fish, which must have sufficient water to
survive. In 2002, thousands of fish died while water was delivered for
agricultural irrigation; the prior year, farmers experienced crop
losses while water was used to maintain stream flows for fish.[Footnote
3] Another prominent example involved the threatened Northern spotted
owl. In the early 1990s, timber sales on federal lands that are habitat
for the Northern spotted owl were brought to a virtual halt by federal
court injunctions. In various rulings, the federal courts enjoined the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management from selling timber until
they addressed issues related to protecting the habitat of the
owl.[Footnote 4]
More recently, controversies surrounding the act have centered on the
adequacy of the scientific information used to make decisions about
whether and how to list species. Just in the past few months sparks
have flown in response to scientific decisions concerning the Florida
panther, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, and the greater sage
grouse. In the first case, FWS conceded weaknesses in the data used to
craft some of its plans to protect the endangered panther. While
critics of FWS claim the agency's use of faulty information was
politically motivated, FWS officials defend it as an honest mistake
made in the context of an ever-evolving body of knowledge. In the case
of the Preble's mouse, FWS announced in January 2005 that it will
propose removing the mouse from the endangered species list because new
research indicates that it is genetically not a separate subspecies of
meadow jumping mouse as previously thought. Critics of the act cite
this as evidence that the act does not require sufficient scientific
evidence before a species is listed. Finally, FWS also recently
announced that it will not place the sage grouse on the endangered
species list. Critics of the decision are concerned that politics
interfered with a scientifically justified decision to list the
species. FWS claims that the decision was the result of an extensive
review of scientific data and analysis.
While there are no simple answers to the conflicts and controversies
surrounding the act, we believe that the federal agencies responsible
for managing endangered species and their habitats can be more
effective in how they manage these conflicts or potentially avoid
conflicts altogether. We have issued more than 15 reports in the past
10 years addressing how the Endangered Species Act is being
implemented. (These reports are listed in Appendix I along with other
GAO reports that discuss the effect of the act on other programs).
Today, I am going to discuss our work on two of the major issues
currently being debated concerning the Endangered Species Act--the
difficulty of balancing species needs with other resource uses and the
use of science in implementing the act. Specifically, this testimony
addresses (1) collaboration among federal agencies to conserve
threatened and endangered species and (2) utilization of scientific
information by FWS in key Endangered Species Act decisions.
This testimony is based primarily on four previously issued reports. In
general, we did not perform additional audit work in preparing this
testimony. We made recommendations in these four reports and have
updated the status of agencies' efforts to implement our
recommendations. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Summary:
In summary, we found that federal agencies have taken steps to improve
collaboration as a way to reduce conflicts that often occur between
species protections and other resource uses, but that more could be
done to promote routine use of collaboration and clarify agencies'
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In September 2003,
we reported on efforts taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to
coordinate with other federal land managers in order to reduce the
impact of species protections on military activities. We found several
cases where such efforts were successful. For example, at the Barry M.
Goldwater range in Arizona, Air Force officials worked with officials
at FWS and the National Park Service to enhance food sources for the
endangered Sonoran pronghorn in locations away from military training
areas. As a result, the Air Force was able to minimize the impact of
restrictions on training missions due to the presence of the pronghorn.
However, such cases were few and far between because, among other
things, there were no procedures or centralized information sources for
facilitating such collaboration. In March 2004, we reported on
collaboration that takes place pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the act-
-referred to as the consultation process--in the Pacific Northwest. In
this area, large numbers of protected species and vast amounts of
federal land conspire to make balancing species protection and resource
use a contentious endeavor. We found that steps the Services and other
federal agencies had taken made the consultation process run smoother
and contributed to improved interagency relationships. However, some
problems have persisted. For example, some agencies disagree with the
Services about when consultation is necessary and how much analysis is
required to determine potential impacts on protected species. In each
of these reports, we made recommendations intended to further improve
collaboration among federal agencies with regard to balancing species
protections and other resource uses, and--in the March 2004 report--to
resolve disagreements about the consultations process. DOD and FWS have
begun discussing an implementation strategy to improve collaboration
regarding species protection on military and other federal lands and
development of a training program. With regard to the consultation
process, while FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to expand
their collaboration processes, the agencies did not believe that
disagreements about the consultation process require additional steps.
They believe that current training and guidance is sufficient to
address questions about the process.
With regard to the use of science, we have found that FWS generally
used the best available information in key Endangered Species Act
decisions, although the agency was not always integrating new research
into ongoing species management decisions. In addition, we identified
concerns with the adequacy of the information available to make
critical habitat decisions. In December 2002, we reported on many
aspects of the decision making for species protections regarding the
Mojave Desert tortoise. We found that the decision to list the tortoise
as threatened, its critical habitat designation, and the recommended
steps in the species' recovery plan, were based on the best available
information. However, despite over $100 million in expenditures on
recovery actions and research over the past 25 years, it is still
unclear what the status of the tortoise is and what effect, if any,
recovery actions are having on the species because research has not
been coordinated in a way to provide essential management information.
Such information is critically important as some of the protective
actions, such as restrictions on grazing and off road vehicle use, are
vigorously opposed by interest groups who question whether they are
necessary for the tortoise's recovery. Accordingly, we recommended that
FWS better link land management decisions with research results to
ensure that conservation actions and land use restrictions actually
benefit the tortoise. In response, FWS recently established a new
office with a tortoise recovery coordinator and plans to create an
advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are
fed back into management decisions. In August 2003, we found that,
similar to the decision making regarding the tortoise, FWS decisions
about listing species for protection under the act were generally based
on the best available information. However, while most critical habitat
designations also appeared to be based on the best available
information, there were concerns about the adequacy of the information
available at the time these decisions are made. Specifically, critical
habitat decisions require detailed information of a species' life
history and habitat needs and the economic impacts of such decisions--
information that is often not available and that FWS is unable to
gather before it is obligated under the act to make the decision. As a
result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior clarify how
and when critical habitat should be designated and identify if any
policy, regulatory, or legislative changes are required to enable the
department to make better informed designations. FWS has not responded
to our recommendation.
Collaborating to Protect Endangered Species:
At the heart of many of the controversies surrounding the Endangered
Species Act is the competition for natural resources--competition
between the needs of threatened and endangered species and resource
extraction industries, land owners, and other users of the natural
resources on which those species depend. Our work has largely focused
on the challenges that agencies face in protecting species while
carrying out their other mission-related related responsibilities, some
of which could have a negative impact on protected species. While our
work has highlighted positive examples where collaboration between
federal agencies has reduced conflict, there is still room for
improvement.
Collaboration Can Help the Military Sustain Critical Functions While
Protecting Endangered Species:
We saw the importance of collaboration among federal agencies in our
work evaluating the protection of threatened and endangered species and
habitat on military installations in the United States. Many DOD and
other federal agency officials have recognized that military lands
often provide some of the finest remaining examples of rare wildlife
habitat for protected species. In fact, more than 300 threatened or
endangered species inhabit military lands. However, DOD officials are
concerned that the presence of protected species may constrain
essential military training. DOD officials have identified the
Endangered Species Act, along with other factors such as competition
for air space and urban growth around military installations, as issues
affecting or having the potential to affect military training and
readiness.[Footnote 5]
In September 2003,[Footnote 6] we issued a report on the extent to
which DOD and other federal land management agencies are cooperatively
managing the protection of endangered species affecting military
training ranges, and the factors that can limit such collaboration. We
found several cases where DOD and other federal land managers have
entered into cooperative agreements that have benefited both the
species and the military. For example, collaboration among federal
agencies around the Air Force's Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona,
minimized the impact of restrictions on training exercises that were
necessary to protect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (a species
similar in appearance to an antelope). Previously, Air Force officials
reported that 32 percent of their live-fire missions were either
cancelled or moved due to the presence of the pronghorn. Air Force
officials worked with FWS and National Park Service officials to
jointly fund forage enhancement plots, which provided food sources for
the Sonoran pronghorn. The plots enticed the pronghorn to an adjacent
national wildlife refuge and away from military training areas and, as
a result, minimized the impact of restrictions on training missions.
However, the instances of collaboration between DOD and the Departments
of the Interior and Agriculture were limited. Although the departments
have entered into memorandums of understanding that contain specific
actions to be taken to implement cooperative management--such as
forming interagency working groups, identifying geographic regions for
species management, and identifying reporting requirements--many of the
specific actions in these agreements were never fully implemented and
most agreements had expired. When there were examples of cooperative
management efforts between DOD and other federal land managers, they
were often initiated in response to a crisis, such as a marked decline
in a species' population or land-use restrictions that significantly
impacted federal land managers' abilities to carry out their missions.
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture identified a
number of factors that can limit interagency cooperative management for
endangered species affecting military training ranges. In addition to
the absence of a shared sense of crisis among federal land managers,
other obstacles to agency collaboration included limited agency
interaction, resource constraints, lack of land manager training and
experience, and the lack of centralized or otherwise easily accessible
sources of information.
In our September 2003 report, we recommended that the Secretaries of
Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture develop and implement an
interagency strategy, a comprehensive training program, and a
centralized data source for cooperative management efforts. The
departments concurred on the need to improve interagency cooperation.
The Department of Defense, FWS, and others have initiated plans for an
interagency strategy, training program, and information sharing
mechanisms.
Collaboration Can Help Reduce the Contentiousness of the Consultation
Process:
Collaboration is central to the consultation process required under
section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, where federal agency
officials must jointly assess the potential impacts of agency
activities on protected species. The process can get contentious,
however, because it sometimes pits officials at the Services against
officials from other agencies who are attempting to carry out typical
agency activities. For example, the process can become difficult when
an agency such as the Corps of Engineers is planning an activity in
accordance with its mission to support navigation in the nation's
waterways, such as issuing permits for dock construction, and the
Services recommend project changes in order to meet the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act. Such changes can impact the nature of the
original project, and add to the time and cost necessary to complete
what some agency officials described as seemingly benign or
insignificant activities.
We issued a report in March 2004 that evaluated the consultation
process in the northwestern United States.[Footnote 7] We were asked to
evaluate the consultation process in this region because of persistent
concerns about the time and cost that consultation added to federal
activities and activities that are federally-permitted or funded. In
the northwest United States, the consultation process is a prominent
feature of federal land management because of the region's combination
of large areas of federal land and significant numbers of listed
species. Endangered or threatened species in this region include the
Northern spotted owl, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, bull trout, and
various species of salmon.
Between 1997 and 2000, 25 species in the northwest were identified for
protection under the Endangered Species Act. This prompted concerns
about the consultation process because many projects in the region were
delayed, sometimes for years, because of the Services' inability to
address the associated workload increases. For example, according to a
local community representative, before salmon were listed for
protection in the late 1990s, the Corps of Engineers' permitting
process for activities such as constructing or modifying private docks
on Lake Washington generally took only 2 or 3 months and averaged about
5 percent of construction costs. Since salmon were listed, the Corps
must consult with NMFS when issuing these permits. This representative
said that, as a result, the timeframes for permits have increased to
about 24 months and permitting costs have increased to about 33 percent
of construction costs.
We found that, in response to concerns about the consultation process,
the Services and other federal agencies had taken steps in three
general categories to make the consultation process more collaborative
and efficient.
The Services and other federal agencies took steps to facilitate
collaboration among their staffs so that disagreements about species
protections and project modifications could be resolved before they
slowed down the consultation process. Officials at the agencies cited
several benefits of these steps such as increased trust between the
Services and other agencies, better communication, and earlier
involvement in projects, which many officials emphasized as important
for consultations to run efficiently.
The Services and other federal agencies also developed approaches to
reduce the consultation workload, such as including multiple related
activities in a single consultation. According to officials, this has
increased the efficiency of the consultation process and enabled the
agencies to deal more quickly with activities for which the effects on
species are known.
The Services and other federal agencies took steps to increase the
consistency and transparency of the consultation process, such as
providing interagency training courses and posting guidance and
information on agency Web sites. For example, to address disagreements
between the Services and other federal agencies, the Services issued
guidance on how to assess the effects of right-of-way permits on
protected species.
Despite efforts to improve the consultation process, officials with the
Services and other federal agencies still have concerns about two key
issues. First, officials at the agencies are still concerned about
workload. While staff levels have increased in recent years, increases
in personnel have been outpaced by the increasing number and complexity
of consultations. Officials told us that more activities are going
through the consultation process than before and that projects are
becoming more complex, requiring greater analysis and staff time to
identify potential impacts on species and any necessary protections.
Second, officials at the Services and other federal agencies sometimes
disagree about the extent to which consultation is necessary. Some
agency officials said they feel pressured by the Services--and by the
fear of litigation--to seek consultation, regardless of the likely
effects of an activity on protected species, including in situations
where they feel consultation is unnecessary. Officials at the Services
also cited the fear of litigation, and said they believed that they
were simply fulfilling their responsibilities under the act to consult
on projects that may affect protected species regardless of the level
of the potential impact. The result is a continued sense of frustration
among agency officials regarding what protections are necessary under
the Endangered Species Act and the time it takes to reach agreements in
agency consultations.
Because many concerns about the consultation process center on its
timeliness, we recommended in our March 2004 report that FWS and NMFS
work with other agencies to determine how best to capture data on the
level of effort devoted to the consultation process and use this
information to manage the process. We further recommended that the
Secretaries of the Interior and Defense, the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Chief of the Forest Service
work together to resolve disagreements about when consultation is
required and how detailed an analysis is necessary. Both FWS and NMFS
have taken steps to improve information management of the consultation
process, although it is unclear whether they have determined how to
capture the level of effort devoted to the process--admittedly, a
difficult task. While FWS and NMFS have continued to take steps to
expand collaborative processes, in an update on their actions, the
agencies stated that they did not believe that disagreements about the
consultation process require the adoption of additional measures. They
believe that the current training and guidance on consultation is
sufficient to address questions about the process.
Using Scientific Information to Make Decisions:
Scientific information is a key component of most decisions regarding
the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Our work has largely
focused on how FWS has used information in key decisions about
endangered species, such as listing threatened and endangered species,
designating critical habitat, and developing species recovery plans.
While we found that FWS has generally done a good job using available
information to make decisions, there is still room for improvement.
While Many Key Protection Decisions for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Were
Based on the Best Available Information, FWS Has Not Always Integrated
Research Into Ongoing Recovery Decisions:
In a December 2002 report,[Footnote 8] we found that key FWS decisions
were supported by the best available information. We relied on experts
identified for us by the National Academy of Sciences to review FWS
listing, critical habitat, and recovery plan decisions for the Mojave
Desert tortoise. Based on their review of the information available at
the time the respective decisions were made, the scientists we
consulted agreed that the listing of the desert tortoise in 1990, the
critical habitat designation, and the recommendations in the recovery
plan were reasonable. These scientists recognized that, as is often the
case with such decisions, little published data on the species were
available. However, they agreed that FWS's decisions were appropriate
and consistent with their understanding of the agency's
responsibilities under the act.
Our report, however, was less positive with regard to what FWS had
learned about the tortoise since their decisions were made. We found
that while over $100 million (in constant 2001 dollars) had been spent
on research and recovery efforts over the past 25 years, there was
still little known about the species' status, the key threats to its
survival, or the effectiveness of management actions implemented to
help the tortoise. While many actions intended to protect the tortoise
have been taken, necessary research had not been conducted to determine
whether these actions were effective. For example, the Bureau of Land
Management prohibited sheep grazing on more than 800,000 acres of
tortoise habitat in California and implemented restrictions on off-road
vehicles in tortoise habitat. While individual studies had been
conducted on these issues, the research had not been coordinated in a
way to answer questions about the impact of such actions on tortoise
populations or habitat. Determining the effectiveness of such
protective actions is important because they affect large areas of
land, were recommended on the basis of limited published data, and in
some cases, are vigorously opposed by certain interest groups. Unless
managers link research findings to assessments of recovery actions that
have been implemented, they cannot make determinations based on
scientific information as to whether land use restrictions should
remain unchanged, be strengthened, or whether alternative actions are
more appropriate.
To ensure that the most effective actions are taken to protect the
tortoise, we recommended in our December 2002 report that the Secretary
of the Interior develop and implement a coordinated research strategy
for linking land management decisions with research results and
periodically reassess the recovery plan for the tortoise. In response,
FWS recently established a new office with a tortoise recovery
coordinator and three field coordinators who will help coordinate
research and management. In addition, the agency plans to create an
advisory committee to ensure that monitoring and recovery actions are
fed back into management decisions. FWS previously utilized an expert
committee to review the recovery plan for the tortoise. Although the
committee found that the plan was fundamentally sound, it similarly
recommended that ties between research and management be strengthened.
Species Listing and Critical Habitat Decisions Are Based On Best
Available Information, but Concerns Remain About the Adequacy of that
Information:
Recent concerns about FWS listing and critical habitat decisions have
focused on the role that "sound science" plays in the decision making
process and whether FWS properly interprets scientific data and bases
its decisions on adequate scientific information. Critics of FWS
decisions warn that improper listing and critical habitat decisions may
disrupt social and economic activities and divert funding and attention
away from species truly facing extinction. The Endangered Species Act
requires FWS to use the best available information when making
decisions to list species or designate critical habitat. It is
important to note that the "best available" standard does not obligate
FWS to conduct studies to obtain new data, but prohibits the agency
from ignoring available information. FWS goes through an extensive
series of procedural steps that involve public participation and review
by outside experts (i.e., peer reviewers) to help ensure that it
collects relevant data and uses it appropriately.
In August 2003, we reported on FWS's use of available scientific
information in making listing and critical habitat decisions.[Footnote
9] Because of the number of species decisions to analyze and the
inherent difficulties in independently assessing available scientific
information and determining what constitutes a scientific sound
decision, we identified several proxies for assessing the reliability
of FWS listing and critical habitat decisions. These proxies entailed
reviews of:
* The procedures FWS follows for gathering information and internally
reviewing decision documents;
* Comments from peer reviewers on listing and critical habitat
decisions;
* The outcomes of legal challenges to these decisions; and:
* Subsequent changes to FWS listing and critical habitat decisions,
such as after additional scientific information had been gathered.
In each case, we determined that, overall, FWS species listing and
critical habitat decisions were based on the best available
information. However, experts and others knowledgeable about the
Endangered Species Act have expressed concerns about FWS's ability to
designate critical habitat for some listed species given the amount of
information available on the species' habitat needs at the time
decisions must be made--at the time of listing or shortly thereafter.
Unlike listing decisions that are more straightforward--requiring FWS
to answer only a "yes or no" question as to whether a species warrants
listing--critical habitat decisions often require more detailed
knowledge of a species' life history and habitat needs and call for FWS
to factor in the species' special management needs as well as the
economic impacts of the designation. FWS officials, experts, and others
with whom we spoke agreed that the amount of scientific information
available when they are required to designate critical habitat is
limited and often affects FWS's ability to adequately define the
habitat essential to the species' conservation. While some interested
parties stated that FWS designated areas too broadly and included lands
unsuitable for several species, others said that FWS did not designate
enough habitat for some listed species. According to FWS officials, the
resource and time constraints under which its scientists work often
preclude them from collecting new information and, as a result, their
ability to produce adequate critical habitat designations may be
limited by the information available for some species. We found that
most scientific disagreements surrounding recent critical habitat
designations concerned whether the area chosen as critical habitat is
sufficiently defined or whether the overall information used to support
the designation is adequate. In order to increase the amount of
information available on which to base critical habitat designations,
FWS and others, including the National Research Council, have
recommended delaying designations until recovery plans are
developed.[Footnote 10]
We also reported that FWS's critical habitat program faced a serious
crisis that extended well beyond the use of science in making
decisions. Key court decisions have invalidated certain practices
adopted by the agency, causing its critical habitat program to become
overburdened by litigation. Specifically, a key court case in 1997
invalidated FWS's policy regarding when it was prudent to designate
critical habitat for listed species.[Footnote 11] Prior to the
decision, FWS had designated critical habitat for only about 10 percent
of listed species. Since then, court orders and settlement agreements
have compelled FWS to designate critical habitat in cases that the
agency had previously determined doing so was not prudent. In 2001, FWS
lost another key lawsuit, challenging the adequacy of the economic
analyses the agency used to support its critical habitat
designations.[Footnote 12] Since this decision was issued, court orders
and settlement agreements have prompted FWS to re-issue some critical
habitat decisions. The Department of the Interior believes that the
flood of litigation over critical habitat designation is preventing FWS
from taking what it deems to be higher priority activities, such as
addressing the approximately 250 "candidate" species waiting to go
through the listing process (listing and critical habitat activities
are funded under the same line item in the department's budget).
Because FWS's critical habitat program faces serious challenges,
including questions regarding the role of critical habitat in species
conservation, we recommended in our August 2003 report that the
Secretary of the Interior provide clear strategic direction for the
critical habitat program by clarifying the role of critical habitat and
how and when it should be designated and recommending policy,
regulatory, and/or legislative changes necessary to address these
issues. The Department did not respond to our request to comment on a
draft of this report and has not formally indicated whether or not it
intends to implement the recommendation.
Conclusion:
We recognize that passions run high when issues concern the Endangered
Species Act. The act, with its broad powers to restrict the use of
natural resources and impinge upon individual property rights, coupled
with its noble purpose to conserve the ecosystems upon which threatened
and endangered species depend, provides a crucible for an ongoing
national debate concerning the tradeoffs between economic, social, and
environmental values. As members of the Subcommittee are well aware,
there are no easy answers. However, there is common ground among
everyone concerned about the act and its impact on the nation and its
resources. All can agree that reducing the negative impacts of
implementing the act--whether it be the loss of credibility for the
Services over debates about "sound science" or the perceived injustice
of limited resource use due to needed species protections--while
improving the status of threatened and endangered species is a worthy
goal. In our testimony today, we have highlighted just a few examples
where federal agencies, working cooperatively and diligently, have
achieved just that. Unfortunately, we found too few examples of this in
our work. We believe more can be done. The task before us is to
identify how all concerned parties--federal, tribal, state, local, and
private--can work together to improve the status of threatened and
endangered species while further reducing the negative impacts of
implementing the act. As we begin a new review of how species recovery
plans are being implemented--work that was requested by a bipartisan
group of Senators and Congressmen including the Chairman of this
Subcommittee--we hope that the successful examples on collaboration and
the use of science we noted here are harbingers for future cooperation
and success.
Appendix I: GAO Reports Concerning the Endangered Species Act:
Reports Addressing Implementation of the Endangered Species Act:
Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses
Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically
Assess Its Funding Decisions. GAO-05-211. Washington, D.C.: April, 6,
2005.
Protected Species: International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect
Wildlife Differently. GAO-04-964. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2004.
Endangered Species: Federal Agencies Have Worked to Improve the
Consultation Process, but More Management Attention Is Needed. GAO-04-
93. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2004.
Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase
Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training
Ranges. GAO-03-976. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2003.
Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best Available
Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for
Critical Habitat Designations. GAO-03-803. Washington, D.C.: August 29,
2003.
Endangered Species: Despite Consultation Improvement Efforts in the
Pacific Northwest, Concerns Persist about the Process. GAO-03-949T.
Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2003:
International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under
Five Key Agreements. GAO-03-249. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2003.
Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed
for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program. GAO-03-23. Washington,
D.C.: December 9, 2002.
Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery
Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions. GAO-02-612. Washington,
D.C.: July 26, 2002.
International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under
Five Key Agreements. GAO-02-960T. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002.
Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are Allocated and
What Activities Are Emphasized. GAO-02-581. Washington, D.C.: June 25,
2002.
Canada Lynx Survey: Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis.
GAO-02-496T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2002.
Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis. GAO-02-488R.
Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2002.
Accidental Contamination of Samples Used in Canadian Lynx Study
Rendered the Study's Preliminary Conclusion Invalid. GAO-01-1018R.
Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2001.
Endangered Species Act: Fee-Based Mitigation Arrangements. GAO-01-
287R. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2001.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Challenges to Managing the Carlsbad,
California, Field Office's Endangered Species Workload. GAO-01-203.
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2001.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Weaknesses in the Management of the
Endangered Species Program Workload at the Carlsbad, California Field
Office. T-RCED-00-293. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2000.
Endangered Species: Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest Gains.
RCED-99-102. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration: Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status
for Two Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in
California. OGC-00-5. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 1999.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration: Endangered and Threatened Species of Salmonids. OGC- 99-
38. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 1999.
Estimated Costs to Recover Protected Species. RCED-96-34R. Washington,
D.C.: December 21, 1995.
Reports Related to the Endangered Species Act:
Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training
Ranges Still Evolving. GAO-03-621T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003.
Transboundary Species: Potential Impact to Species. GAO-03-211R.
Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002.
Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges. GAO-02-614. Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2002.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges. GAO-02-727T. Washington, D.C.: May 16,
2002.
Consequences of the Ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on
Forest Management Projects. GAO-01-51R. Washington, D.C.: November 30,
2000.
Timber Management: Forest Service Has Considerable Liability for
Suspended or Canceled Timber Sales Contracts. GAO-01-184R. Washington,
D.C.: November 29, 2000.
Army Corps of Engineers: An Assessment of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement of the Lower Snake River Dams. RCED-00-186.
Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2000.
National Fish Hatcheries: Authority Needed to Better Align Operations
With Priorities. RCED-00-151. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2000.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Agency Needs to Inform Congress of Future
Costs Associated With Land Acquisitions. RCED-00-52. Washington, D.C.:
February 15, 2000.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Management and Oversight of the Federal Aid
Program Needs Attention. T-RCED-99-259. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 1999.
International Environment: Literature on the Effectiveness of
International Environmental Agreements. RCED-99-148. Washington, D.C.:
May 1, 1999.
Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin
Plans Demonstrate Improvements in Land-Use Planning. RCED-99-64.
Washington, D.C.: May 26, 1999.
Forest Service: Distribution of Timber Sales Receipts, Fiscal Years
1995 Through 1997. RCED-99-24. Washington, D.C.: November 12, 1998.
Water Resources: Corps of Engineers' Actions to Assist Salmon in the
Columbia River Basin. RCED-98-100. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 1998.
Federal Land Management: Estimates of Value and Economic Effects of
Canceled and Suspended Timber Sale Contracts in the Pacific Northwest.
RCED-98-18R. Washington, D.C.: October 6, 1997.
Forest Service: Unauthorized Use of the National Forest Fund. RCED-97-
216. Washington, D.C.: August 29, 1997.
Tongass National Forest: Lack of Accountability for Time and Costs Has
Delayed Forest Plan Revision. T-RCED-97-153. Washington, D.C.: April
29, 1997.
Federal Power: Issues Related to the Divestiture of Federal Hydropower
Resources. RCED-97-48. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 1997.
Timber Management: Opportunities to Limit Future Liability for
Suspended or Canceled Timber Sale Contracts. RCED-97-14. Washington,
D.C.: October 31, 1996.
Bureau of Reclamation: An Assessment of the Environmental Impact
Statement on the Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. RCED-97-12.
Washington, D.C.: October 2, 1996.
Northwest Power Planning Council: Greater Public Oversight of Business
Operations Would Enhance Accountability. RCED-96-226. Washington, D.C.:
August 30, 1996.
Animas-La Plata Project: Status and Legislative Framework. RCED-96-1.
Washington, D.C.: November 17, 1995.
(360573):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Tenn.Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).
[2] Legislation, passed in 1979, allowed for completion of the Tellico
Dam.
[3] For a more comprehensive assessment of the status of the nation's
freshwater supply see U.S. General Accounting Office, Freshwater
Supply: States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Shortages, GAO-03-514 (Washington, D.C.: July 9,
2003).
[4] For a fuller account of this controversy and efforts to resolve it,
see U.S. General Accounting Office, Ecosystem Planning: Northwest
Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin Plans Demonstrate Improvements
in Land-Use Planning, GAO/RCED-99-64 (Washington, D.C.: May 26, 1999).
[5] U. S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Lacks a
Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-
614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002). See also U.S. General Accounting
Office, Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on
Training Ranges Still Evolving, GAO-03-621T (Washington, D.C.: April 2,
2003); and U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Needs
a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-
727T (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002).
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: Implementation
Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for Endangered
Species Affecting Training Ranges, GAO-03-976 (Washington D.C.:
September 29, 2003).
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species: More Federal
Management Attention Is Needed to Improve the Consultation Process, GAO-
04-93 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004). See also U.S. General
Accounting Office, Endangered Species: Despite Consultation
Improvements Efforts in the Pacific Northwest, Concerns Persist about
the Process, GAO-03-949T (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2003).
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species: Research
Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise
Recovery Program, GAO-03-23 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2002).
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species: Fish and
Wildlife Service Uses Best Available Science to Make Listing Decisions,
but Additional Guidance Needed for Critical Habitat Designations, GAO-
03-803 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2003).
[10] National Research Council, Science and the Endangered Species Act
(Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995) pp. 71-93.
[11] Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Department of
the Interior, 113 F.3d 1121 (9TH Cir. 1997).
[12] New Mexico Cattle Growers v. United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10TH Cir. 2001).
