Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. .:...-._........."-'-""-~.. - - -- ------- .. -- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />002333 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />'~ <br /> <br />Service agreed with this recommendation and said that it planned to have <br />a computerized information exchange system in operation by September 30, <br />1983. However, we believe that because the Service failed to provide <br />full support to this system, it still does not have an up-to-date <br />national system to quickly provide complete species natural history and <br />technical data to Federal, state, and other Users. <br /> <br />The 1988 amendments to the Endangered Species Act require the Service to <br />provide the following: (1) a system to monitor the status of species <br />determined to be warranted for listing under petition, (2) a priority <br />system for developing recovery plans and the inclusion within such plans <br />of specific items to be addressed, (3) a system for monitoring recovered <br />species for a prescribed time, and (4) the submission of an annual report <br />to the Congress containing reasonably identifiable Federal and state <br />(under Section 6 of the Act) expenditures for endangered and threatened <br />species on a species-by-species basis. These requirements indicate that <br />the Congress recognizes the need for information with which it can more <br />reasonably assess program results, activities, and costs. <br /> <br />The endangered species program, as mandated, is expansive in scope, but <br />it also requires strict adherence to specific requirements set by the <br />Congress. The program's primary resource is its staff of professional <br />biological personnel and their cumulative knowledge of affected species. <br />In order to ensure that the Service adheres to Congressional requirements <br />and uses its cumulative knowledge effectively, we believe that it is <br />essential for the Service to continuously maintain a national system to <br />track basic management and scientific information. Therefore, we believe <br />that the Service should either modify the existing Endangered Species <br />Information System or initiate a new national system that will have the <br />capability to store and disseminate the basic management and scientific <br />information discussed in this section. <br /> <br />Mana~emenc Reviews <br /> <br />The Service does not consistently perform program management reviews of <br />endangered species activities. Prudent program management requires that <br />management periodically review its organizational entities to ensure <br />consistent compliance with program policy and verify the attainment of <br />reported program results. Program management reviews have not been <br />performed since the changeover from a centralized to a decentralized <br />program management system. Without an effective system of internal <br />review I management has no assurance that activities consistently comply <br />with program policy and that reporred program accomplishments reflect the <br />most effective use of program resources. <br /> <br />Until 1986, the Service administered the endangered species program <br />through a centralized program management system. This system involved a <br />program manager, located at Service headquarters and reporting to the <br />Director, who was effectively responsible for administering the entire <br />national program. The program manager had authority over regional <br />directors regarding program policy and provided overall guidance on <br />program scrategy. as well as specific delineations of program policy. <br />Under this system, detailed evaluations of regional endangered species <br /> <br />19 <br />