The act also  requires the Service to designate critical habitat for listed species. Procedures Are in Place to Ensure That Listing and Critical Habitat Decisions Are Based on the Best Available Science

The Endangered Species Act requires the Service to use the best available  scientific data when deciding to list species or designate critical habitat. 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. While the Service generally complied with its policy to seek peer reviewers,  reviewers often did not respond. Peer Reviewers and Others Conclude that Most Listing Decisions Are Based on Best Available Science, but Concerns about Critical Habitat Decisions Remain

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. 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. 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. The Service has been aware of problems with its critical habitat program  for a number of years. 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. Recommendation for Executive Action

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. 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. The decision to list a species must be based solely on the best available  scientific and commercial data.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.