Endangered Species Act
Many GAO Recommendations Have Been Implemented, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved Gao ID: GAO-09-225R December 19, 2008The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects plant and animal species that are either facing extinction (endangered species) or are likely to face extinction in the foreseeable future (threatened species) and protects the ecosystems upon which they depend. The act includes provisions for listing species that need protection, designating habitat deemed critical to a listed species' survival, developing recovery plans, and protecting listed species against certain harms caused by federal and nonfederal actions. Since the act's inception, more than 1,300 species occurring in the United States or its territories have been placed on the list of threatened and endangered species. The Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--collectively referred to as "the services"--are responsible for administration and implementation of the ESA, but all federal agencies have responsibilities for protecting species under the act. The act has long been a lightning rod for political debate about the extent to which the nation's natural resources should be protected and how best to protect them. Proponents of the act believe that it is important to preserve the unique characteristics of each species as a practical response to the impact that humans are having on the earth, and some believe that there is a moral obligation to do so. Some critics of the act deemphasize the importance of preserving every individual species and argue that doing so, in many cases, is too costly--especially when implementation of the act results in restricting the use of public and private land and resources. Others question the validity and completeness of the data used to make decisions under the act. Litigation regarding various aspects of implementation of the act has consumed considerable program resources. Over the last 10 years, we have reported on many of the major program areas of the ESA--listing, critical habitat, recovery, and the consultation process by which federal agencies ensure that their actions do not cause certain harms to listed species--and have made a number of recommendations for improvements. This report discusses recommendations that have been implemented and those that have not. Three of the five enclosures to this report contain background on the ESA, a report-by-report summary of the actions taken to implement GAO recommendations, and a list of GAO reports that discuss the ESA but do not contain recommendations related to its implementation. To conduct this follow-up review, we gathered information on agency actions from program officials and reviewed documentation where appropriate. We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 to December 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
FWS, NMFS, and other federal agencies have implemented a majority of the recommendations that we have made over the last 10 years to strengthen implementation of the act. For example, FWS and NMFS have directed staff to include time and cost estimates for recovering species in recovery plans as well as a discussion of the five criteria used to make listing and delisting decisions to reduce confusion about when it is appropriate to propose delisting a species. In addition, FWS, NMFS, and some federal agencies they consult with on federal actions have continued to work together to improve efficiencies in the consultation process by adding guidance, expanding training, and disseminating information about the process. The agencies have also evaluated and incorporated improvements to the process, including "streamlining," in which interagency teams of biologists seek consensus on proposed actions prior to formal consultation. Furthermore, FWS and other agencies have signed memorandums of understanding to enhance and encourage collaboration for the conservation of listed species. For example, in 2005, USDA, DOD, and Interior signed an interagency action plan for endangered species management affecting DOD lands.
GAO-09-225R, Endangered Species Act: Many GAO Recommendations Have Been Implemented, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-225R
entitled 'Endangered Species Act: Many GAO Recommendations Have Been
Implemented, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved' which was released on
January 21, 2009.
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.
GAO-09-225R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 19, 2008:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Peter DeFazio:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jay Inslee:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Endangered Species Act: Many GAO Recommendations Have Been
Implemented, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved:
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects plant and animal
species that are either facing extinction (endangered species) or are
likely to face extinction in the foreseeable future (threatened
species) and protects the ecosystems upon which they depend. The act
includes provisions for listing species that need protection,
designating habitat deemed critical to a listed species' survival,
developing recovery plans, and protecting listed species against
certain harms caused by federal and nonfederal actions. Since the act's
inception, more than 1,300 species occurring in the United States or
its territories have been placed on the list of threatened and
endangered species. The Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS)--collectively referred to as "the services"--
are responsible for administration and implementation of the ESA, but
all federal agencies have responsibilities for protecting species under
the act.[Footnote 1]
The act has long been a lightning rod for political debate about the
extent to which the nation's natural resources should be protected and
how best to protect them. Proponents of the act believe that it is
important to preserve the unique characteristics of each species as a
practical response to the impact that humans are having on the earth,
and some believe that there is a moral obligation to do so. Some
critics of the act deemphasize the importance of preserving every
individual species and argue that doing so, in many cases, is too
costly--especially when implementation of the act results in
restricting the use of public and private land and resources. Others
question the validity and completeness of the data used to make
decisions under the act. Litigation regarding various aspects of
implementation of the act has consumed considerable program resources.
Over the last 10 years, we have reported on many of the major program
areas of the ESA--listing, critical habitat, recovery, and the
consultation process by which federal agencies ensure that their
actions do not cause certain harms to listed species--and have made a
number of recommendations for improvements. This report discusses
recommendations that have been implemented and those that have not.
Three of the five enclosures to this report contain background on the
ESA (enclosure I), a report-by-report summary of the actions taken to
implement GAO recommendations (enclosure II), and a list of GAO reports
that discuss the ESA but do not contain recommendations related to its
implementation (enclosure III).
To conduct this follow-up review, we gathered information on agency
actions from program officials and reviewed documentation where
appropriate. We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 to
December 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We provided
a draft of this report to those federal agencies to which we made prior
recommendations: the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce,
the Department of Defense (DOD), and Interior.
Summary:
FWS, NMFS, and other federal agencies have implemented a majority of
the recommendations that we have made over the last 10 years to
strengthen implementation of the act. For example, FWS and NMFS have
directed staff to include time and cost estimates for recovering
species in recovery plans as well as a discussion of the five criteria
used to make listing and delisting decisions to reduce confusion about
when it is appropriate to propose delisting a species. In addition,
FWS, NMFS, and some federal agencies they consult with on federal
actions have continued to work together to improve efficiencies in the
consultation process by adding guidance, expanding training, and
disseminating information about the process. The agencies have also
evaluated and incorporated improvements to the process, including
"streamlining," in which interagency teams of biologists seek consensus
on proposed actions prior to formal consultation. Furthermore, FWS and
other agencies have signed memorandums of understanding to enhance and
encourage collaboration for the conservation of listed species. For
example, in 2005, USDA, DOD, and Interior signed an interagency action
plan for endangered species management affecting DOD lands. As we have
previously mentioned, we discuss other recommendations that have been
implemented in enclosure II.
Almost one-third of our recommendations, however, have not been
implemented. Specifically,
* FWS has yet to clarify the role of critical habitat and how and when
it should be designated, as we recommended in 2002 and 2003.[Footnote
2] As we noted in our reports, the critical habitat process has been
the subject of significant litigation, largely due to FWS not
designating habitat when required, and has consumed significant program
resources. FWS has drafted a policy document that is going through
departmental review, and, in 2006, the service convened a team to
provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding
changes to the regulations implementing the act. FWS does not expect
the policy or regulations to be final until the spring of 2009 or
later. Delays have been caused by higher-priority work; court
decisions, including adverse rulings; and other policy decisions.
* FWS has not issued annual endangered species expenditure reports in a
timely fashion, as we recommended in 2003.[Footnote 3] Reports for
fiscal years 2005 and 2006 were issued in December 2008; the report for
expenditures in fiscal year 2007 is expected to be issued in early
2009. An FWS official told us that FWS has issued these reports late
because of delays in receiving data from some states, but that the
agency is implementing a new process to improve their timeliness in
issuing future reports.
* FWS, NMFS, and other federal agencies either have not resolved
certain disagreements in the consultation process or have not ensured
that their agreements are disseminated to all staff involved in
consultations, as we recommended in 2004.[Footnote 4] For example, the
agencies disagree about how to evaluate the impact of ongoing water
operations--such as dam operations--that began before enactment of the
ESA. Some agency officials believe that these types of disagreements
are inherent, given the competing priorities of some agency missions
and implementation of the ESA, and need to be dealt with on a case-by-
case basis. However, other officials believe that additional guidance
would be helpful in resolving these disagreements.
* FWS and NMFS are not tracking the amount of time spent by federal
agencies during "preconsultation"; that is, the time spent preparing
for consultation before the process officially begins. We recommended
in 2004 that the agencies do so in response to a myriad of concerns
about the length of time spent in preconsultation.[Footnote 5] FWS and
NMFS officials told us that they have not tracked time in
preconsultation because doing so is difficult. NMFS officials said that
they have instead focused resources on higher-priority activities. FWS
recently formed an oversight committee for their consultation tracking
system and will consider tracking preconsultation activities. We
recognize the difficulty that may be involved in tracking the time
spent, and it appears that concerns about the time spent in
preconsultation have lessened now that the agencies have more
experience with the process.
* Although it has plans to do so, FWS has not periodically assessed
expenditures on species in relation to their relative priority, nor has
it publicly discussed the factors other than relative priority that
affect funding decisions, as we recommended in 2005.[Footnote 6] FWS
plans to implement both recommendations beginning with the fiscal year
2008 Recovery Report to Congress, which the agency expects to issue by
December 2009. We made this recommendation to improve transparency
about funding decisions because a number of species that receive
significant funding are lower in priority than other species that
receive little or no funding.
* FWS, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service are working together to add FSA to an existing
memorandum of understanding for coordinating conservation programs that
can benefit threatened and endangered species, as we recommended in
2006; these agencies plan to modify the current memorandum of
understanding by September 2009.[Footnote 7]
Agency Comments:
Interior provided additional details on the actions it has taken to
address those of our recommendations that have not yet been
implemented, and we have incorporated these details as appropriate.
Commerce had no comments on the draft report, but noted that it was
committed to providing guidance as needed and working with FWS with an
ultimate goal of clarifying issues surrounding the consultation
process. USDA provided technical clarifications that we have
incorporated. DOD had no comments on the draft report. Interior's
comment letter is presented in enclosure IV.
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 interested congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, and the Interior; and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your offices have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in enclosure V.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosures - 5:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
Background:
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is to conserve
threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. An endangered species is a species facing extinction throughout
all, or a significant portion of, its range; threatened species are
those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The
process to "list" species for protection under the act begins either
through the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (FWS) or the Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service's (NMFS) own initiative or through a petition
(referred to as a 90-day petition) from an interested person, and it is
governed by the act, federal regulations, and other guidance that the
services may issue. If petitioned, the services must comply with time
frames in the act for responding with a decision about whether a
species warrants listing. As of November 2008, 1,331 species that occur
in the United States or its territories were listed for protection
under the act. FWS has primary responsibility for the vast majority of
these species; FWS and NMFS share responsibility for 6 species of sea
turtles. When a species is listed, the act also generally requires the
agencies to designate critical habitat--which is habitat essential to
species conservation. As of November 2008, the services had designated
critical habitat for 520 species.
The act requires the services to develop recovery plans for the
conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species, unless
the services determine that a plan will not promote their conservation.
The act directs the services, to the maximum extent practicable, to
incorporate in each recovery plan (1) a description of the site-
specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goal for
the conservation and survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable
criteria that will result in a determination that the species can be
"delisted," or removed from the list of threatened and endangered
species; and (3) estimates of the time and cost required to carry out
the measures needed to achieve the plan's goal. A recovery plan may
include a variety of methods and procedures to recover listed species,
such as habitat acquisition and restoration to prevent extinction or
further decline, and other on-the-ground activities for managing and
monitoring endangered species. The act requires the services to
establish guidelines for prioritizing the development and
implementation of recovery plans for species.
As of November 2008, 1,128 species had approved recovery plans. The act
requires that the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior report
biennially to certain congressional committees on efforts to develop
and implement recovery plans and on the status of all species for which
plans have been developed. The act also requires FWS to submit to
Congress on or before January 15 of each year a report of the prior
fiscal year's federal expenditures for the conservation of threatened
and endangered species on a species-by-species basis as well as
expenditures by states receiving federal assistance for such
conservation activities.
Before authorizing, funding, or carrying out activities, federal
agencies must determine whether these activities might affect a listed
species or designated critical habitat. If effects are likely, the
agencies must consult with FWS and/or NMFS to ensure that the
activities will not jeopardize a species' continued existence or
adversely modify its designated critical habitat. To initiate the
consultation process, an agency submits a biological assessment or
similar document to the services that describes the proposed activity
and its likely effects on listed species and habitat. Consultation
usually ends with the services issuing their own assessments of the
likely effects, including any recommendations or requirements to
mitigate these effects. Although there are set time frames for
completing consultations, federal agencies and the services often
discuss proposed activities' designs, effects, mitigation,
documentation, or other matters in "preconsultation" sessions, which
occur before these time frames begin.
[End of section]
Enclosure II:
Summary of GAO Recommendations and Implementation Status:
GAO-01-203 - Fish and Wildlife Service: Challenges to Managing the
Carlsbad, California, Field Office's Endangered Species Workload:
(1) FWS should ensure that the Carlsbad field office's new computerized
project-tracking system for consultations and habitat conservation
plans is properly implemented and that procedures are developed to
periodically review the data to determine that they are promptly and
accurately entered.
Agency Actions:
* The Carlsbad field office developed a computerized database in 2001
to track workload, including section 7 consultations and habitat
conservation plans. Supervisory staff developed quality control
measures and applied them to the database to help ensure consistency
and accuracy of the information entered in the database, and the
database administrator implemented random checks on projects entered in
the database to ensure that data for all required fields are properly
entered.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(2) FWS should assess whether a computerized project-tracking system,
such as the one being implemented in the Carlsbad office, will allow
consistency and accuracy in obtaining and reporting information on the
status of consultations and the habitat conservation plan workload and,
if so, consider whether such a system should be implemented Service-
wide.
Agency Actions:
* FWS determined that a computerized project tracking system would
assist in improving consistency and accuracy in obtaining and reporting
information on the status of consultations and the habitat conservation
plan workload.
* FWS implemented a nationwide database--the Tracking and Integrated
Logging System (TAILS)--in 2007 that tracks consultations and plans to
expand TAILS to include habitat conservation plans in 2009.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
FWS should ensure that the Carlsbad field office complies with federal
internal control standards by centrally locating all files on
consultations and habitat conservation plans. Furthermore, the Carlsbad
office should develop procedures to periodically review these files to
determine if they contain the complete history of the projects,
including documentation of all agreements between the applicant and the
Service.
Agency Action:
* In 2001, the Carlsbad field office purchased additional file storage
equipment to centralize all files originating in fiscal year 2001. All
project files are now kept in the centralized filing area, and each
file is cross-referenced with a unique number that corresponds to its
entry in the new computerized database for tracking the office's
workload. The office's filing system is also cross-referenced with
TAILS.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(4) FWS should identify and assess options for improving the Carlsbad
office's ability to hire and retain staff.
Agency Action:
* Interior worked with the Office of Personnel Management to establish
an open register for fish and wildlife biologist positions to help
improve the field office's ability to more quickly recruit qualified
candidates. Use of the open register became effective in February 2001.
FWS officials believed that by filling vacancies, it would contribute
to improving the staff retention rate by redistributing and reducing
the high workloads that were the cause of some staff separations.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented. However, a Carlsbad
official told us that the high cost of living and high workloads
continue to be issues for employee retention. This official said that
although reduced, loss of staff to other offices and other federal
agencies continues.
(5) FWS should revise its customer service policy to include specific
requirements for a customer complaint system and make that system
easily accessible to the public.
Agency Action:
* FWS implemented a customer service center that receives questions and
complaints from the public and can be accessed via the FWS Web site or
a toll-free number, which receives most of the inquiries and is run by
a contractor. FWS has written procedures for handling complaints, and
the contractor responds to routine questions and refers complex calls
to FWS headquarters. The contractor also refers issues to headquarters
when it detects particular patterns in the types of calls or concerns
that are raised.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
GAO-02-581 - Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are
Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized:
(1) FWS should expedite its efforts to develop guidance on designating
critical habitat for listed species.
Agency Action:
* In 1999, Interior published a notice in the Federal Register
soliciting comments on its intention to develop guidance to clarify the
role of critical habitat in conserving endangered species. This notice
acknowledged the need for a more efficient and cost-effective process
for designating critical habitat, because responding to critical
habitat litigation had significantly delayed other service listing
activities. FWS has drafted a critical habitat policy that is going
through departmental review, and, in 2006, the service convened a team
to provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding
changes to the regulations implementing the act. The draft critical
habitat guidance is again being reviewed and revised by FWS to address
a recent opinion from Interior's Office of the Solicitor and draft
internal guidance on critical habitat exclusions. FWS does not expect
the policy or regulations to be final until the spring of 2009 or
later. Delays have been caused by higher-priority work; court
decisions, including adverse rulings; and other policy decisions.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been implemented.
(2) FWS should review the processes being used across the agency to
charge staff time to different program areas.
Agency Action:
* In 2005, FWS implemented activity-based costing, which is intended--
among other things--to ensure that employees record work as it was
actually performed, as opposed to how the work was planned or budgeted.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
GAO-03-23 - Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term
Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program:
(1) FWS should develop and implement a coordinated research strategy
for the desert tortoise that would link land management decisions with
research results.
Agency Actions:
* Interior has taken a number of actions to coordinate research and
land management decisions. In 2004, FWS created a Desert Tortoise
Recovery Office (DTRO) that organizes regular meetings of the Desert
Tortoise Management Oversight Group, which federal, state, and local
land managers and researchers attend. Topics discussed at these
meetings include the status of monitoring efforts, planned management
actions, and recovery plan revision. The DTRO is supported by a Science
Advisory Committee that advises the office and its cooperators on the
overall scientific direction of the recovery effort, assesses the
efficacy of monitoring, prioritizes research and research-based
recovery actions, evaluates research results and recovery progress, and
consults outside scientific experts, as necessary. In 2006, the U.S.
Geological Survey issued a report that evaluated the effectiveness of
recovery actions and made recommendations for additional science and
monitoring, which the DTRO and its cooperators are working to
implement. In addition, the revised draft recovery plan for the
tortoise, which was issued in August 2008, also places a strong
emphasis on coordinating research and management.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(2) FWS should periodically reassess the desert tortoise recovery plan
to determine whether scientific information developed since its
publication could alter implementation actions or allay some of the
uncertainties about the plan's recommendations.
Agency Actions:
* In 2003, FWS appointed a committee to carry out a scientific
assessment of the desert tortoise recovery plan in advance of any
renewal or revision of the plan. The committee reported their findings
in October 2004. Primary findings were that the recovery plan was
fundamentally strong, but that it could benefit substantially from
revision in several areas. FWS issued a draft revised recovery plan in
August 2008.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(3) The Secretary of the Interior should work with the Secretary of
Defense and other agencies and organizations involved in tortoise
recovery to identify and assess options for securing continued funding
for rangewide population monitoring, such as developing memorandums of
understanding between organizations.
Agency Actions:
* A number of federal and state land management agencies have signed a
memorandum of agreement for conserving and enhancing the California
deserts for current and future generations, including carrying out
recovery actions for the desert tortoise. Signatories include the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FWS, National Park Service, U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Geological Survey, Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marines, California state parks, California Department
of Transportation, and three large California counties. These entities
meet regularly to discuss impacts on the California desert and what
resources and management actions are needed to address these impacts,
including actions for desert tortoise recovery. In addition, the
agencies on the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group are
preparing to sign a charter for their group that will include a
commitment to seek funding for monitoring.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(4) FWS should issue the annual expenditure reports as required by the
law, and advise Congress if reports are incomplete because not all
agencies have provided the information requested.
Agency Actions:
* FWS did not provide the reports for expenditures on endangered
species in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to Congress until December 2008.
FWS has gathered data needed for the fiscal year 2007 report and
expects to send it to Congress in early 2009. An FWS official
attributed the delays primarily to delays in receiving information from
several state agencies on their expenditures for endangered species.
FWS is implementing a new process for collecting data from the states
and is now working to complete the reports in a more timely fashion.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been implemented, but FWS has plans to do
so.
GAO-03-803 - Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best
Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance
Needed for Critical Habitat Designations:
(1) FWS should 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.
Agency Actions:
* In 1999, Interior published a notice in the Federal Register
soliciting comments on its intention to develop guidance to clarify the
role of critical habitat in conserving endangered species. This notice
acknowledged the need for a more efficient and cost-effective process
for designating critical habitat, because responding to critical
habitat litigation had significantly delayed other service listing
activities. FWS has drafted a critical habitat policy that is going
through departmental review, and, in 2006, the service convened a team
to provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding
changes to the regulations implementing the act. The draft critical
habitat guidance is again being reviewed and revised by FWS to address
a recent opinion from Interior's Office of the Solicitor and draft
internal guidance on critical habitat exclusions. FWS does not expect
the policy or regulations to be final until the spring of 2009 or
later. Delays have been caused by higher-priority work; court
decisions, including adverse rulings; and other policy decisions.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been implemented.
GAO-03-976 - Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to
Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting
Training Ranges:
The Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture should
jointly develop and implement an interagency strategy that includes a
systematic methodology to identify opportunities for cooperative
management efforts, funding sources, science and technology sources,
and goals and criteria to measure success.
Agency Actions:
* The three departments signed an interagency action plan for
endangered species management affecting Department of Defense (DOD)
lands in 2005 that includes an interagency strategy with the elements
described in our recommendation.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(2) The Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture should
jointly develop a comprehensive training program for federal land
managers, to include senior executives, regional, and on-site staff to
identify and implement opportunities for interagency cooperation.
Agency Actions:
* The three departments established a joint working group and developed
a plan to identify opportunities for cooperative management and
training.
* DOD developed a Web-based system, Defense Environmental Network &
Information Exchange, which contains a detailed calendar that provides
users with information on upcoming events such as training courses,
seminars, and conferences on environmental stewardship--including
endangered species management--at DOD, other federal agencies, the
private sector, and international sites.
* The U.S. Geological Survey manages a Web-based exchange called "The
National Biological Information Infrastructure," which allows land
managers to share information within and across agencies and
organizations. The data repository provides information on research and
monitoring efforts as well as training conferences for land managers,
researchers, and others.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(3) The Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture should
jointly create a centralized or easily accessible source of information
on cooperative management efforts that includes elements such as
lessons learned, best practices, and agency contacts for federal land
managers.
Agency Actions:
* The departments established a joint working group and created the
"Threatened and Endangered Species Document and Data Repository," which
allows federal land managers to share information within and across
agencies and organizations on threatened and endangered species
research and monitoring efforts as well as other species information.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(4) Matter for Congressional Consideration - Congress may wish to
consider requiring the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and
Agriculture to jointly report each year on their efforts to manage
cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training ranges
and share the burden of land use restrictions.
Congressional Actions:
* Rather than requiring annual reports, Congress has required reports
on individual efforts to manage endangered species affecting military
training ranges. For example, the 2004 National Defense Authorization
Act directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a task force--made
up of representatives from the military, state and federal wildlife
agencies, and wildlife and environmental interest groups--to explore
ways to resolve conflicts between training and species protection at
the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona. The act also required the
Secretary of the Interior to prepare a report, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Defense, on water-use management
measures and conservation measures at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and
Sierra Vista subwatershed.
GAO Analysis:
* This matter for congressional consideration has been implemented.
GAO-04-93 - Endangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is
Needed to Improve the Consultation Process:
(1) FWS and NMFS should work together with the action agencies we
reviewed (and others the services may deem appropriate) to determine
how best to capture the level of effort devoted to preconsultation in
their data systems and ensure that such information is gathered,
maintained, and used to manage the process effectively.
Agency Actions:
* NMFS and FWS have determined that it is difficult to capture the
level of effort in preconsultation, the sometimes lengthy discussions
that occur before formal consultation with agencies. NMFS officials
stated that it is difficult to discern how much work during
preconsultation should be attributed to the ESA because preconsultation
often includes discussion of other subjects, such as compliance with
other federal, state, and local requirements. NMFS officials also
stated that determining the level of effort was not a priority, given
limited resources. FWS officials had similar concerns, although the
agency has recently formed an oversight committee for its consultation
tracking system and will consider tracking preconsultation activities.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been implemented, and it is unclear
whether the agencies will do so for the reasons stated above. However,
we recognize the difficulty that may be involved in tracking the time
spent, and it appears that concerns about the time spent in
preconsultation have lessened now that the agencies have more
experience with the process.
(2) FWS, NMFS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Bureau of
Reclamation, BLM, and the U.S. Forest Service should work together to
resolve disagreements about when consultation is needed and how
detailed an analysis is necessary given a proposed activity's likely
effects on species or habitat, and ensure that their agreements are
disseminated quickly to all staff involved in consultations as well as
to the public.
Agency Actions:
* FWS, NMFS, BLM, and the Forest Service have continued to devote
significant effort to supporting the use of "streamlining," a process
in which interagency teams of biologists seek consensus on proposed
actions before formal consultation. Officials at some of these agencies
noted that most disagreements about when consultation is needed have
been resolved using these interagency teams. The Corps issued guidance
for compliance with consultation requirements that includes, among
other things, clarification on when consultation is needed and when
disagreements over projects should be brought to the attention of
managers. An FWS official we spoke with said that disagreements or
confusion about what is needed for consultation tends to subside over
time as federal agencies get more experience with the process and as
FWS and NMFS become more familiar with agency actions that need to go
through consultation. Some officials also noted that disagreements
become more likely as the types of actions that must be consulted on
change or increase in complexity.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been fully implemented. While we
recognize that disagreements are somewhat inherent in the consultation
process and will continue to arise, we found that disagreements persist
among FWS, NMFS, and the Bureau of Reclamation over the definition of
environmental baseline, particularly in the case of ongoing operations-
-an issue we discussed in our report--as well as with regard to the
extent of federal discretion over certain activities. Some officials at
these agencies asserted that such disagreements are inevitable, since
agencies' normal operations sometimes affect threatened or endangered
species, but they believe that the agencies have sufficient processes
in place to work through these disagreements. Furthermore, some agency
officials believe that these cases need to be resolved on a case-by-
case basis because of their uniqueness or complexity. However, other
officials told us that additional policy and guidance on how to handle
these issues would be helpful. The differences of opinion on this issue
are an indication that the agencies either continue to have
disagreements that could be resolved through additional policy or
guidance, or that they need to better communicate to staff involved in
consultations about how to handle these situations.
(3) The Secretaries of the Interior and Defense, the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Chief of the Forest Service
should work together to refine guidance, as needed, on the type and
specificity of documentation required in consultations.
Agency Action:
* NMFS, FWS, BLM, the Forest Service, and the Corps have taken a
variety of steps to implement this recommendation, including issuing
guidance documents, expanding training, and disseminating information
on agency Web sites.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(4) The Secretaries of the Interior and Defense, the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Chief of the Forest Service
should work together to evaluate efforts to improve the consultation
process, such as programmatic consultations and streamlining, and use
the results as a basis for future management actions.
Agency Actions:
* NMFS and FWS, working with other agencies, have participated in
various reviews of consultation improvement efforts. For example, a
FWS/NMFS analysis of BLM and Forest Service projects done through an
expedited consultation process for activities conducted under the
National Fire Plan found that a significant percentage of projects did
not meet the documentation criteria for describing the project area,
the project, the species affected, and the likely effects. As a result,
NMFS and FWS officials provided feedback to agency staff involved in
the consultations about ways to improve the assessments. In addition,
BLM and Forest Service officials increased their oversight and added
guidance for these types of projects. The agencies have continued to
expand their use of streamlining and programmatics to other types of
federal actions and other areas of the country.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
GAO-05-211 - Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally
Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to
Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions:
(1) FWS should periodically assess the extent to which it is following
its recovery priority guidelines and identify how factors other than
those in the guidelines are affecting its funding allocation decisions.
Agency Action:
* FWS has made plans to assess recovery program funding periodically
and identify factors other than priority number that may have
influenced the level of funding certain species receive.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been implemented, but FWS has plans to do
so.
(2) FWS should report the factors affecting species expenditures
publicly, for example, in its biennial recovery reports to Congress.
Agency Action:
* FWS has made plans to discuss factors that influence the level of
funding certain species receive beginning in the 2008 Recovery Report
to Congress, which the agency expects to issue by December 2009.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been implemented, but FWS has plans to do
so.
GAO-05-906 - Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government
Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife:
(1) The Director of FWS should develop consistent communication for
state and local wind power regulators. This communication should alert
regulators to (a) the potential wildlife impacts that can result from
wind power development; (b) the various resources that are available to
help them make decisions about permitting such facilities, including
FWS state offices, states' natural resource agencies, and FWS's
voluntary interim guidelines--and any subsequent revisions--on avoiding
and minimizing wildlife impacts from wind turbines; and (c) any
additional information that FWS deems appropriate.
Agency Actions:
* FWS developed consistent communication about the potential wildlife
impacts from wind power and the resources available to help regulators
make decisions about permitting wind power and provided this
communication through a number of conferences and meetings. For
example, FWS cosponsored a regional conference in the Great Lakes area
that addressed wildlife impacts of wind power development. The
conference was, in part, targeted at and attended by state and local
regulators. At the conference, federal agencies and other presenters
provided information on the possible wildlife impacts of wind power
development. At other conferences and meetings, FWS alerted regulators
to the effects of wind development on wildlife by informing them about
the availability of expert agency staff, such as migratory bird
specialists in field offices.
* In response to requests from state agencies, FWS has assisted a
number of states, including California, Colorado, New York, and Ohio,
in developing guidelines for wind power.
* FWS is updating its interim voluntary wind turbine guidelines, which
inform wind developers about how to address potential wildlife effects
and are similarly useful for wind power regulators. A federal advisory
committee, which includes representatives from two states, first met to
address these guidelines in February 2008. FWS expects this to be a
multiyear effort, with final guidelines to be completed around late
2010. After the guidelines become final, FWS will provide information
about them in press releases, public workshops and conferences,
symposia, and other forums.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
GAO-06-463R - Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover
Species Are Largely Unknown:
(1) FWS and NMFS should implement their current recovery planning
guidance when drafting or revising recovery plans so that recovery
plans routinely estimate the overall time and cost to recover species
and report this information in a single location (e.g., in the biennial
recovery reports to Congress).
Agency Actions:
* In 2006, NMFS issued a memorandum reiterating its guidance that
estimates of the overall time and cost to recover species be included
in all new recovery plans.
* In 2008, FWS issued a memorandum to its regional offices reiterating
the need to routinely estimate the overall time and cost to recover
species in all new and revised recovery plans. Estimating time and
costs to recover species has been in FWS guidance since 1990.
* The Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered
Species, Fiscal Years 2005-2006, includes time and cost estimates for
species for which recovery plans contain such estimates. However,
because plans for the majority of listed species were not originally
completed with time and cost estimates and have not been revised
recently, most species in the report lack such estimates.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(2) FWS and NMFS should include in recovery plan guidance direction
that all new and revised recovery plans have either recovery criteria
evidencing consideration for all five delisting factors or a statement
regarding why it is not practicable to do so.
Agency Actions:
* In 2006, NMFS revised its interim guidance and issued a memorandum
directing that recovery plans include evidence that all five delisting
factors were considered and state if a factor is not considered a
threat to the species.
* In 2008, FWS issued a memorandum to its regional offices directing
that recovery plans include evidence that all five delisting factors
were considered and state if a factor is not considered a threat to the
species.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
GAO-07-35 - USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on
Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered
Species and Their Habitats:
(1) The Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and
the Director of FWS should work with the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) to incorporate monitoring and reporting
mechanisms in their memorandum of understanding prior to finalizing it
for implementation.
Agency Action:
* In 2007, NRCS and FWS signed a memorandum of understanding with AFWA
that incorporated monitoring and reporting measures.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has been implemented.
(2) The Chief of NRCS, the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency
(FSA), and the Director of FWS, in cooperation with AFWA, should
include FSA as an additional partner to the memorandum of understanding
or develop a separate memorandum to address coordination.
Agency Action:
* FSA has agreed to become a signatory party to the 2007 memorandum of
understanding between NRCS, FWS, and AFWA. NRCS, FWS and AFWA will work
with FSA to incorporate within the memorandum of understanding the
appropriate conservation activities and programs administered by FSA
which benefit threatened and endangered species. The agencies plan to
modify the current memorandum of understanding by September 2009.
GAO Analysis:
* This recommendation has not been implemented, but the agencies have
plans to do so.
[End of section]
Enclosure III:
GAO Reports Discussing the Endangered Species Act, but Containing No
Recommendations Regarding Its Implementation:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act Decision Making.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-688T]. Washington, D.C.:
May 21, 2008.
Military Training: Compliance with Environmental Laws Affects Some
Training Activities, but DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for
Additional Environmental Exemptions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-407]. Washington, D.C.: March 7,
2008.
Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover
Select Species. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-730].
Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2006.
Endangered Species Act: Successes and Challenges in Agency
Collaboration and the Use of Scientific Information in the Decision
Making Process. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-732T].
Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2005.
Protected Species: International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect
Wildlife Differently. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-964]. Washington, D.C.: September
15, 2004.
Endangered Species: Despite Consultation Improvement Efforts in the
Pacific Northwest, Concerns Persist about the Process. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-949T]. Washington, D.C.: June 25,
2003.
International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under
Five Key Agreements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-249]. Washington, D.C.: January 29,
2003.
Transboundary Species: Potential Impact to Species. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-211R]. Washington, D.C.: October 31,
2002.
Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery
Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-612]. Washington, D.C.: July 26,
2002.
International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under
Five Key Agreements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-960T]. Washington, D.C.: July 24,
2002.
Canada Lynx Survey: Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-496T]. Washington, D.C.:
March 6, 2002.
Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1018R]. Washington, D.C.: August 14,
2001.
Endangered Species Act: Fee-Based Mitigation Arrangements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-287R]. Washington, D.C.: February
15, 2001.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Weaknesses in the Management of the
Endangered Species Program Workload at the Carlsbad, California Field
Office. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-RCED-00-293].
Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2000.
Army Corps of Engineers: An Assessment of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement of the Lower Snake River Dams. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-186]. Washington, D.C.: July
24, 2000.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration: Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status
for Two Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in
California. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OGC-00-5].
Washington, D.C.: October 15, 1999.
Endangered Species: Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest Gains.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-102]. Washington,
D.C.: May 13, 1999.
International Environment: Literature on the Effectiveness of
International Environmental Agreements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-148]. Washington, D.C.: May 1,
1999.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration: Endangered and Threatened Species of Salmonids.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OGC-99-38]. Washington,
D.C.: April 7, 1999.
Water Resources: Corps of Engineers' Actions to Assist Salmon in the
Columbia River Basin. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-100]. Washington, D.C.: April
27, 1998.
[End of section]
Enclosure IV:
Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
December 16, 2008:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, Endangered Species Act: Many GAO Recommendations Have Been
Implemented but Some Issues Remain Unresolved," (GAO-09-225R).
Over the past 10 years, we have implemented most of GAO's
recommendations made on various program areas of the Endangered Species
Act. The enclosure provides updates to actions we have taken to meet
the few recommendations that remain open.
We hope these comments will assist you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Lyle Laverty:
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
[End of section]
Enclosure V:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Richard P. Johnson, Trish
McClure (Assistant Director), Benjamin Shouse, and Bruce Skud made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] FWS has primary responsibility for freshwater and terrestrial
species, while NMFS has primary responsibility for most marine species
and anadromous fishes, which spend portions of their life cycle in both
fresh and salt water.
[2] GAO, Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are
Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-581] (Washington, D.C.: June 25,
2002), and Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best
Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance
Needed for Critical Habitat Designations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-803] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29,
2003).
[3] GAO, Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring
Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-23] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9,
2002).
[4] GAO, Endangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is
Needed to Improve the Consultation Process, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-93] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19,
2004).
[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-93].
[6] GAO, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally
Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to
Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-211] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6,
2005).
[7] GAO, USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on Participation
and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species and Their
Habitats, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-35]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2006).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
