Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. ,~~",~""",--";,,,,;,--..--.:,,-,_.~ " .. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />\) {) 2. '3 J) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />for 197 species listed as endangered or threatened. Available <br />information sho~ed. ho~ever, thac only 60 recovery plans had been <br />developed regarding more than 60 species, leaving a potential of 137 <br />species ~ithout approved recovery plans. The Region could not readily <br />provide us with the current recovery plan development status of the <br />approximate 137 species for which approved recovery plans did not exist. <br />At Region 4. the recovery planning coordim.tor maintained a personal <br />computer data base which contained recovery plan information on <br />officially listed Regional species. Based on information contained in <br />this data base, as of October 26, 1989, the Region was responsible for <br />the development of recovery plans for 182 species. The Region had <br />approved recovery plans covering 106 of these species. 30 recovery plans <br />were in process of development, and 46 species ~ere not covered by <br />recovery plans. The recovery planning coordinator indicated that <br />recovery plan development was the responsibility of field offices and <br />that she would have to contact them to determine the status of recovery <br />plan development for those species for which a current plan did not exist <br />or for which development was indicated. The coordinator said that plans <br />might not be available for some species because they were believed to be <br />either nonrecoverable or extinct. <br /> <br />In our opinion. management oversight of the status of recovery plan <br />development is an essential element: in measuring the success of the <br />Service in complying with the Act. Therefore, such information should be <br />kept current and be readily available at all times. We believe that the <br />reasons for not preparing recovery plans for particular species are <br />highly relevant to overall program goals and these reasons should be <br />directly made known to management and periodically reevaluated. We <br />found, however, that management had not exercised sufficient oversight to <br />ensure that all regions were expeditiously developing recovery plans for <br />listed endangered species. As shown in the preceding examples, some <br />regions had made considerably more progress than others in developing <br />required plans. Management oversight had not ensured that a uniform top <br />priority approach was taken by all regions in developing plans and <br />implementing recovery tasks. Therefore. ~e believe that senior <br />management needs to promulgate to the regions explicit guidance on the <br />development and implementation of recovery plans and tasks and then <br />perform the necessary oversight to ensure program accomplishment. <br /> <br />Imolementation of Recoverv Plans <br /> <br />Regarding recovery plan implementat:ion. the General l\.ccounting Office <br />noted in its December 1988 report on Service recovery efforts (see "Prior <br />Audit Coverage") that many recovery tasks had not been initiated and that <br />efforts to track the implementation of such tasks were "spotty and <br />sporadic." We found that the Service still did not have a uniform system <br />in effect to track the status of the individual recovery tasks included <br />within each recovery plan. Without tracking and monitoring recovery <br />tasks, the Service cannot effectively evaluate the overall status of <br />implementation efforts associated with each recovery plan. Therefore, we <br />believe that the conditions that existed when the General Accounting <br />Office examined the program have not improved notably. <br /> <br />12 <br />