Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />OJ233G <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Office of Insoector General Comments <br /> <br />The Service's response was not sufficient to consider Recommendation 1 <br />and Recommendation 2 resolved as follows: <br /> <br />Recommendations la. lc. and ld. We believe that the extra time <br />spent on these activities will result in significantly more effective <br />overall program planning and use. of resources on a national basis. We <br />also believe that program costs and results cannot be tracked accurately <br />without a national system in place to reasonably track this basic <br />expenditure and scientific information. As such, we are requesting that <br />the Service reconsider this recommendation. <br /> <br />Recommendarion lb. Although the Service indicared that rhe number, <br />cost, and results of status surveys are tracked at the field level, we <br />believe that such information should also be at the regional and <br />headquarters levels. The information would allow management to <br />effectively track and determine the total listing costs of individual <br />species and to analyze the Service's needs and funding requirements to <br />fully comply with the Act. Also, the status information on individual <br />species would be available throughout the Service and to other interested <br />parties. As such, this recommendation should be reconsidered. <br /> <br />Recommendation le. Although the Service indicated that this <br />recommendation had been implemented, we did not note during our review <br />that such information was specifically and continuously tracked. The <br />Service should provide us with documentation, such as a copy of the <br />January 1990 report, that such information is currently tracked <br />Servicewide. <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. The Service did not adequately respond to this <br />recommendation; therefore, we are requesting that this recommendation be <br />reconsidered. <br /> <br />22 <br />