WSP00019

• File Number: 8065
• Description: Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 9/1/1990
• Author: US DOI
• Title: US DOI-Office of the Inspector General - Audit Report - The Endangered Species Program - US FWS
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.

002328

.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Response

The July 12, 1990, response from
concurred with Recommendations 1,
Recommendation 3 as follows:

the
2,

Service
and 4

(Appendix 3) generally
but nonconcurred with

the

Recommendation 1.
263 listed species

The Service agreed and provided a breakdown of
without recovery plans.

Recommendation 2. The Service agreed and indicated that the
"Recovery Planning Guidelines" had been revised recently and that the
tracking system for recovery plan status, mandated by the 1988 amendments
to the Act, was "in place." The response stated that the first reports
from the regions were due August 1, 1990, with the first report to
Congress due October 1990.

Recommendation
species listing and
degree of threat
distinction."

3. The Service disagreed and stated that "endangered
recovery priority systems are appropriately based on
to the species, recovery potential and 2enetic

Recommendation ~. The Service stated that it is taking appropriate
steps to improve coordination with Congressional representatives in
reassessing the endangered species program and that it will continue
working with Congress on this national issue through both the budget and
oversight processes.

Office of Inso€ctor General Comments

The Service's response was adequate to consider Recommendation 1
implemented and Recommendation 4 resolved, but additional information is
needed (Appendix 5) to remove the recommendation from our followup
system. The Service's response was not adequate to resolve
Recommendations 2 and 3 as described in the following paragraphs. We
therefore are requesting that the Service reconsider its position on
these recommendations.

Recommendation 2. The Service indicated that a national tracking
system for recovery plan status was now in place and that the recently
revised Recovery Planning Guidelines should greatly facilitate the
recovery planning process. However, the Service did not provide an
action plan which described how the revised guidelines would meet the
intent of the recommendation on establishing, on a national priority
basis, a systematic approach to developing recovery plans.

Recommendation 3. We request that the Service reconsider this
recommendation in view of the current backlog of species to be listed and
the lack of timely progress made to date in species recovery. We believe
that establishing listing and recovery priorities, on a national basis,
should allow for the most effective allocation of resources to maximize
the number of species to be fully recovered and protected.

14