With over three decades of experience administering the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental laws, I offer this reflection not as an attorney but as a practitioner who has observed firsthand what proves effective in the field. In the last several years, I have seen an increase in conflict and polarization between keeping working lands working, sustaining a healthy economy, and conserving habitats for fish and wildlife. Mostly, this conflict is not beneficial to the species we want to conserve, and most of the time results in wasting significant amounts of human and financial resources that otherwise could have been used to benefit the environment.

Thangaraj Kumravel, Flickr

In my experience, “connecting the lily pads” is a purposeful, documented strategy for agency decision-making that advances collaborative conservation under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Much like a frog crossing a creek by carefully jumping from one lily pad to the next – where missing even a single pad would prevent safe passage – state and federal agencies must methodically link each step of analysis from data review to final determination. By doing so, they show they have exercised their expertise within established legal frameworks. Such transparency not only satisfies judicial standards but also reduces confrontation and fosters greater trust among stakeholders.

When agencies share and follow their established processes openly and completely, decisions become less susceptible to misunderstanding or challenge. This supports more constructive collaboration between state and federal agencies, landowners, project proponents, conservation organizations, and the public. If we connect these lily pads, we will then be able to implement more conservation and make full use of the flexibilities available to us, as I recently discussed in Innovations in Conservation (Wildlife Management Institute, February 2026).

The following roadmap provides a practical guide for state and federal personnel administering the Endangered Species Act through the lens of the Administrative Procedure Act. It was written with respect for the demanding work performed by agency biologists, permit writers, and decision-makers, and with the conviction that clear documentation serves the shared goal of effective conservation.

The Foundation of Transparent, Defensible Decisions

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides the framework for evaluating all agency actions under the Endangered Species Act. Courts apply a deferential standard, asking only whether the agency’s decision was reasonable and reasonably explained. This standard recognizes agencies that can show they reviewed relevant facts, clarified their reasoning, and reached a logical determination.

Connecting the lily pads under the APA means creating a visible, logical chain in the administrative record – the official compilation of documents, data, studies, and explanations the agency considered in reaching its decision:

• Identify the sources of data and studies consulted.
• Explain why specific information was selected as the most reliable.
• State why other data or comments, though acknowledged, received less weight.
• Link those choices directly to the agency’s ultimate determination.

When this pathway is transparent, stakeholders can see that the agency followed established procedures with fidelity. The result, in my experience, is fewer disputes and a stronger foundation for collaborative problem-solving – even amid the tensions that often arise between economic vitality and species conservation.

Leo Miranda-Castro

Best Available Science and the Role of Reasonable Certainty

Under the ESA, Section 7 consultations require agencies to ensure that proposed actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. The Biological Opinion must rest on the “best scientific and commercial data available.”

Best available science is not synonymous with perfect or unanimous science. It is the most reliable information reasonably obtainable at the time of the decision. Agencies may evaluate competing studies, adopt one methodology over another, or refine earlier analyses when new data show prior estimates or assumptions were unreliable – provided the record explains the basis for the choice.

An Incidental Take Statement under the ESA is required only when take is “reasonably certain” to occur. If the best available data indicate that anticipated effects remain speculative, no such statement is needed. Completing the logical bridge involves documenting this determination with explicit references to the expected effects on the species being evaluated. By making these connections explicit, agencies show adherence to statutory mandates. Transparency of this nature reduces the perception of arbitrariness and invites constructive engagement from interested parties rather than adversarial challenges, allowing resources to flow toward on-the-ground conservation instead of prolonged disputes.

Building Transparent Records That Foster Collaboration

To implement collaborative conservation through everyday practice, state and federal personnel may find the following checklist useful:

1. Begin every analysis by restating the precise statutory or regulatory question the agency must answer. This anchors the entire review in the specific legal requirement Congress established, keeping the focus sharp and preventing the analysis from drifting into unrelated or extraneous considerations.
2. Enumerate the data sources reviewed and explain why they make up the best available information. This fulfills the Endangered Species Act’s mandate to rely on the best scientific and commercial data available and allows stakeholders to understand the agency’s scientific rationale, thereby building confidence in the decision.
3. For each material decision, include a concise paragraph tracing the logical progression from evidence to conclusion. This step creates the clear “lily pad” connections that make the reasoning visible and logical, enabling any reader to follow how the agency moved from data to determination without gaps.
4. Acknowledge competing data or comments and state briefly why they were not dispositive. Acknowledging contrary views shows that the agency did not arbitrarily ignore relevant information, which is essential for showing the decision is reasonable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
5. Confine the analysis strictly to the agency’s statutory mandate. Staying within the agency’s authority avoids venturing into speculative territory or areas beyond the agency’s legal purview, which could otherwise open the door to unnecessary challenges and divert resources from actual conservation.
6. Employ plain, professional language so that both technical reviewers and members of the public can follow the reasoning. Using clear language promotes transparency and accessibility, helping stakeholders understand the decision and fostering trust that the process is thoughtful and fair.

Thomas Quine, Flickr

These points do not add unnecessary length; they enhance readability and reinforce the transparency that underpins public confidence and helps bridge the divide between working landscapes, communities, and wildlife needs.

Transparent Processes Advance Collaborative Conservation

When agencies connect the lily pads – when they follow established processes, exercise expertise, and document their reasoning with complete transparency – they produce decisions that are lawful, reasonable, and readily understood. By making the agency’s decision-making process transparent, this method notably diminishes confrontation and conflict, allowing stakeholders to follow the logic even if they don't agree with the decision. In place of adversarial litigation, the door opens to collaborative conservation: joint problem-solving, shared mitigation strategies, and mutual trust in the conservation enterprise. By reclaiming this collaborative path, we can redirect the very limited human and financial resources now consumed by polarization toward meaningful conservation gains and the thoughtful use of the flexibilities Congress has provided under the Endangered Species Act.

State and federal employees who administer the Endangered Species Act perform essential work under intense public scrutiny. By committing to transparent, logical documentation, you not only fulfill legal obligations but also strengthen the public’s faith that conservation is being pursued thoughtfully and fairly. The lily pads are in place; the path is yours to illuminate clearly for all who share the goal of protecting our nation’s imperiled species and habitats while sustaining the working lands and economies that depend on them.