Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. , . <br /> <br />..... '. <br />-..--...-........,.-.- ..... ~-" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />002335 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. Critically reassess overall management information needed within <br />the endangered species program to effectively appraise program <br />accomplishments and achievement of objectives. This reassessment should <br />also include the accumulation of cost and resource-usage data needed to <br />plan for future program needs and direction, as well as the most economic <br />and efficient methods to store and disseminate scientific information. <br />At a m1nLmUm, the overall information system should include the <br />capability to track the following: <br /> <br />(for <br /> <br />a. Actual individual employee <br />example, listing, consultation, and <br /> <br />time to the <br />recovery) . <br /> <br />subactivity <br /> <br />level <br /> <br />b. The number, cost, and results of species status surveys. <br /> <br />c. The employee time spent and species addressed on formal and <br />informal consultations, by agency. <br /> <br />d. <br />threatened, <br /> <br />Accumulated scientific knowledge associated with endangered, <br />and candidate species. <br /> <br />e. Information required by the 1988 amendments to the Act, <br />including the status of candidate species for listing, the status of <br />recovered species, and expenditures on a species-by-species basis. <br /> <br />2. Initiate action to require that periodic program management <br />reviews be performed consistently t as appropriate, at the regional and <br />field office levels. <br /> <br />U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ReSDonse <br /> <br />The July 12, 1990, response from the Service (Appendix 3) generally <br />expressed nonconcurrence with RecollDllendations la, Ic, and Id, stating <br />that program accomplishments and achievements of objectives as outlined <br />in the annual work activities guidance are regularly appraised. The <br />Service stated that the just completed internal control evaluation <br />identified the need for a system to improve reporting within the Service. <br />Finally, the Service commented on the reporting of status surveys for <br />Recommendation lb and indicated that Recommendation le had been <br />implemented. The Service did not provide a direct response to <br />Recommendation 2. <br /> <br />Recommendations la. lc. and ld. The Service stated that it did not <br />concur, primarily because of the "increased burden 'of time" this would <br />put on staff and the time taken away from listing, recovery, and <br />consultation activities. <br /> <br />Recommendation lb. The Service indicated that the number, cost, and <br />results of species status surveys are tracked at the field level but are <br />not reported to regional or central office levels. <br /> <br />Recommendation le. The Service stated that the first report on <br />expenditures was sent in January 1990 and that the first reports on plan <br />and species statuses are not due until after this fiscal year. <br /> <br />21 <br />