a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2004 ENDANGERED 

SPECIES

More Federal 

Management Attention 

Is Needed to Improve 

the Consultation 

Process

GAO-04-93
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-93.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry Hill at 

(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-93, a report to 

congressional requesters 

March 2004

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

More Federal Management Attention Is 

Needed to Improve the Consultation 

Process 

The data available on consultations and their timeliness varied between the 

Services, but neither agency’s databases captured all the elements needed to 

reliably determine the length of the process. Data from the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Portland field office 

(the Service’s other five offices did not have comparably reliable data) show 

that about 40 and 30 percent of their nearly 1,220 and 330 consultations, 

respectively, exceeded established time frames (for consultations completed 

during fiscal years 2001 through 2003). However, these data do not include 

the significant time and effort sometimes spent discussing a project before 

consultation officially began. As a result, the Services cannot discern the 

level of effort devoted to Endangered Species Act consultations. 

Federal agencies have taken several steps to make the consultation process 

smoother and more efficient. Specifically, agencies took steps to facilitate 

collaboration, reduce workload, and improve the consistency and 

transparency of the process. While many officials praised these efforts, it is 

unclear whether the efforts are achieving their intended performance 

improvements, for they have not been comprehensively evaluated. 

Despite the improvement efforts, federal officials and nonfederal parties still 

have concerns about the consultation process. Workload has been a 

persistent concern for the Services and other agencies despite staff 

increases in recent years. Another major concern is that the Services and 

agencies sometimes disagree about the extent to which consultation is 

necessary. Some agency officials believe that the Services require more than 

is necessary under the Endangered Species Act, while officials at the 

Services contend that they are simply fulfilling their responsibilities. 

Nonfederal parties also have concerns. Parties seeking to conduct activities 

that are authorized by a federal agency are concerned about the time and 

resources expended to comply with the process. Environmental advocates 

are concerned that the process may not effectively protect species. 

Agencies Must Balance the Use of Natural Resources with the Protection of Species 

To protect species that are at risk 

for extinction, the Endangered 

Species Act requires that federal 

agencies consult with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service or the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (the 

Services) to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or conduct 

will not jeopardize endangered 

species or adversely modify their 

critical habitat. While federal 

agencies recognize that 

consultations benefit species, some 

are concerned about the time and 

resources consumed. In this 

report, GAO (1) assesses the 

federal data on consultations, (2) 

identifies steps by federal agencies 

to improve the process, and (3) 

discusses lingering concerns of 

federal and nonfederal parties 

about the process. GAO limited 

this study to consultations with the 

Forest Service, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the 

Bureaus of Land Management and 

Reclamation in Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington. 

Because many concerns about the 

consultation process center on its 

timeliness, GAO recommends that 

the Services improve the data 

about the time and effort to 

complete the process. GAO further 

recommends that the Services and 

other federal agencies work 

together to clarify the process and 

evaluate improvement efforts. In 

commenting on a draft of this 

report, the agencies generally 

concurred with our findings and 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Completeness of Data Maintained on Consultations Varied between 

the Services but Did Not Capture the Entire Process 12

Improvement Efforts Have Focused on Collaboration, Workload, 

and Information Sharing, but Their Effectiveness Is Unclear 19

Federal Concerns about the Consultation Process Center on 

Workload and Process Requirements 39

Nonfederal Parties’ Concerns Depended on Their Expectations of 

the Consultation Process 54

Conclusions 58

Recommendations for Executive Action 59

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 60

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 63

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 69

GAO Comments 82

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Army 86

GAO Comment 91

Appendix IV: Comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 92

GAO Comments 97

Appendix V: Comments from the Forest Service 98

GAO Comments 105

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 107

GAO Contact 107

Staff Acknowledgments 107

Figures Figure 1: Agencies Must Balance the Use of Natural Resources with 

the Protection of Species 9

Figure 2: Columbia River Basin 10

Figure 3: Workers Install Electric Fish Barrier Fabric on Canal 

Diversion Structure 12

Figure 4: NMFS Timeliness for Formal and Informal 

Consultations 15
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 5: FWS Portland Office Timeliness for Formal and Informal 

Consultations 16

Figure 6: Streamlined Consultation Process Seeks to Bypass the 

Iterative Cycle of Information Requests 22

Figure 7: Site Visit to Culvert Replacement Project on Forest 

Service Land 28

Figure 8: FWS Portland Office Streamlined Formal 

Consultations 31

Figure 9: FWS Portland Office Nonstreamlined Formal 

Consultations 32

Figure 10: FWS Portland Office Streamlined Informal 

Consultations 33

Figure 11: FWS Portland Office Nonstreamlined Informal 

Consultations 34

Figure 12: NMFS Streamlined Formal Consultations 35

Figure 13: NMFS Nonstreamlined Formal Consultations 36

Figure 14: NMFS Streamlined Informal Consultations 37

Figure 15: NMFS Nonstreamlined Informal Consultations 38

Figure 16: Replacement of Creosote-Treated Wood Pilings with 

Steel Pilings 45

Figure 17: Numerous Docks and Piers Line the Shoreline of Lake 

Washington 47

Figure 18: Caving Streambed along a Railway Posed a Safety

Hazard 49

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

March 19, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Michael Crapo 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Max Baucus

United States Senate

More than 80 species listed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act make their home in the vast waterways and 

millions of acres of federally managed lands in the northwestern United 

States. Federal agencies are directed by the act to utilize their authorities to 

conserve such species. In addition, species and habitat must be protected 

against adverse effects of federal activities, such as operating hydroelectric 

dams, thinning vegetation to prevent wildfires, grazing livestock, dredging 

waterways, and constructing or maintaining docks and piers. Deciding how 

best to protect threatened and endangered species, and assessing the 

extent to which federal activities should be altered or restricted, has taken 

time and energy to work through and has generated considerable 

controversy and frustration.

Before authorizing, funding, or carrying out activities, federal agencies 

must determine whether these activities might affect a listed species or 

habitat identified as critical to its survival. If effects are likely, the agencies 

must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service—collectively referred to as the Services—to ensure that 

the activities will not jeopardize a species’ continued existence or 

adversely modify its designated critical habitat. To initiate the consultation 

process, an agency submits a biological assessment or similar document to 

the Services that describes the proposed activity and its likely effects on 

listed species and their habitat. Consultation usually ends with the Services 

issuing their own assessments of the likely effects, including any 

recommendations or requirements to mitigate these effects. Although there 

are set time frames for completing consultations, federal agencies and the 

Services often discuss proposed activities’ designs, effects, mitigation, 

documentation, or other matters in “preconsultation” sessions that occur 

before these time frames begin. In this report, when we say the “entire 

consultation process,” we include preconsultation. 
Page 2 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

From 1997 through 2000, 25 species were listed for protection under the 

Endangered Species Act in the northwestern United States, and frustration 

levels with the entire consultation process increased. These newly listed 

species included bull trout, several species of salmon, and other animals 

that inhabit large geographic ranges. With the new species listings, the 

consultation workload expanded beyond what the Services could handle in 

a timely manner. As a result, many proposed activities were delayed—some 

for months, others for years—because of the requirement to consult. The 

Services were criticized for these delays. Officials with the Services 

acknowledged these delays and attributed them to a lack of resources to 

address the expanded workload and the learning curve associated with 

dealing with newly listed species; however, the officials noted that the 

process is essential in protecting species. 

As requested, in this report we (1) assess the federal data available on 

consultations and determine the number completed and their timeliness for 

fiscal years 1998 through 2003; (2) identify steps taken by the Services and 

other federal agencies to improve the consultation process; and (3) discuss 

concerns of federal officials and nonfederal parties about the process. As 

you requested, we limited our review to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, 

and the Forest Service (the latter four agencies are often referred to as 

“action agencies”) and to consultations conducted in Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington. We obtained electronic data on consultations 

from the Services and tested the reliability of the data. We also 

administered—via telephone or in person—a comprehensive survey to a 

nonprobability sample1

 of 66 officials in the Services and action agencies in 

the four states, and we conducted open-ended interviews with 143 officials. 

Our survey and interviews elicited officials’ perceptions about 

consultations based on their experiences since the late 1990s. We also 

interviewed 44 nonfederal parties, including applicants—parties seeking 

federal authorization or funds to conduct an activity subject to 

consultation—and representatives of environmental advocacy and industry 

groups. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. (See app. I for details on the scope and 

methodology of our review.)

1

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population 

because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population being studied have no 

chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample. 
Page 3 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Results in Brief The data available on consultations completed and their timeliness for 

fiscal years 1998 through 2003 varied between the Services, but neither 

agency’s databases captured all the elements of the entire consultation 

process needed to reliably determine the timeliness of consultations that 

occurred in the four states we reviewed during this period. NMFS 

implemented a regional electronic database in January 2001 that tracks key 

elements of the consultation process for all of its field offices that conduct 

consultations in the four states. We obtained data from this system from 

January 2001 through fiscal year 2003. Before this time, NMFS did not 

maintain electronic data that included dates necessary for determining 

timeliness. FWS implemented an electronic database only recently—in 

March 2003—for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, but not Montana. Before 

then, most FWS field offices either did not track consultations data 

electronically or did not include key elements in their databases such as the 

date on which a consultation was initiated. Consequently, we were able to 

obtain sufficiently reliable electronic data comparable to that from NMFS 

from only one FWS field office—Portland, Oregon—for fiscal years 2001 

through 2003. (Of the six FWS field offices in the four states we reviewed, 

Portland accounted for approximately 20 percent of all consultations 

completed in fiscal year 2002.) Based on data from NMFS’ regional system 

and FWS’ Portland field office, the Services conducted almost 1,550 

consultations during fiscal years 2001 through 2003 with the four action 

agencies in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. While most of these 

1,550 consultations were completed within established time frames, about 

40 percent of the consultations exceeded established time frames, in some 

cases by more than a year. However, these time frames do not capture the 

sometimes significant amount of preconsultation time spent discussing a 

project before the consultation is considered to have officially begun. Some 

officials with the Services and action agencies said that time spent in 

preconsultation can be valuable by resulting in projects that have fewer 

effects on species and habitat. The Services have just begun to capture data 

on actions taken during preconsultation but the Services do not identify the 

level of resources expended or routinely assess how much time is spent in 

preconsultation. Without complete and reliable data on the entire 

consultation process, federal managers and congressional decision makers 

cannot have an accurate picture of how long the process takes to complete, 

how much it costs, and whether resources are adequate to meet workload 

demands. In addition, the Services cannot confirm or deny complaints 

about the lengthiness of the entire consultation process or know where the 

most significant problems arise. 
Page 4 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

The Services and action agencies have taken steps, in three general 

categories, to make the consultation process smoother and more efficient, 

although the effectiveness of these efforts is unclear. First, the Services and 

action agencies have taken steps to facilitate collaboration between staff at 

the Services and action agencies so that disagreements can be resolved 

before they slow down the consultation process. Second, the Services and 

action agencies have developed approaches to reduce the consultation 

workload, such as including multiple related activities in a single 

consultation. And third, the Services and action agencies have taken steps 

to increase the consistency and transparency of the consultation process, 

such as providing interagency training courses and posting guidance and 

information on agency Web sites. Although many officials praised these 

various efforts for helping to reduce workload, promoting better working 

relationships, and protecting species better, in some cases, it is difficult to 

ascertain their effectiveness because the Services have not 

comprehensively evaluated them. While the Services and agencies have 

conducted some analyses of how the new processes are working and what 

problems have occurred, the Services and agencies have not assessed 

whether the processes reduce workload and the time to complete the 

entire consultation process. Given resource constraints, it is imperative 

that resources invested in process changes be justified by gains in process 

efficiency while maintaining or enhancing effectiveness. 

Despite efforts to improve the consultation process, officials with the 

Services and action agencies still have concerns centering on two key 

issues. First, officials at the Services and action agencies are concerned 

about workload. While staff levels have increased in recent years, those 

increases have been outpaced by increases in the number and complexity 

of consultations. Second, officials at the Services and action agencies 

sometimes disagree about the extent to which consultation is necessary. 

Many officials recognized that the consultation process benefits species. 

However, some action agency officials said they feel pressured by the 

Services—and by the fear of litigation—to seek consultation, regardless of 

the likely effects of an activity on listed species, including in situations 

where they feel consultation is unnecessary. In addition, action agency 

officials said the Services sometimes require detailed documentation for 

activities that are unlikely to adversely affect listed species or that will 

benefit the species in the long term, activities for which these officials 

believe less detail should suffice. The officials said that detailed 

documentation of such activities causes the consultation process to take 

longer than it should. For their part, officials at the Services said that the 

need to consult and the level of documentation are dictated by the 
Page 5 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Endangered Species Act, its implementing regulations, the Administrative 

Procedure Act, and the outcomes of court decisions. They believe they are 

appropriately fulfilling their consultation responsibilities to protect 

species, including clearly documenting and explaining the logic supporting 

their decisions. The time and effort required to do so, however, adds to an 

already heavy consultation workload. 

Nonfederal parties’ concerns depended on their expectations of the 

process. Nonfederal parties wanting permits to conduct activities in 

federally managed areas told us that consultation adds inordinately to the 

time and cost of the permitting process. Before the additional species 

listings in the late 1990s, the permitting process for activities such as 

constructing or modifying private docks on Lake Washington generally 

took only 2 or 3 months and averaged about 5 percent of construction 

costs, according to a Lake Washington homeowners’ representative. Now 

that consultation is conducted as a part of the permitting process, this 

representative said that permitting costs have increased to about 33 

percent of construction costs. Furthermore, the average processing time 

for 19 permits issued for such activities in 2002 was about 2 years.

Conversely, environmental advocates expressed concern over the Services’ 

ability to fulfill their legal obligation to effectively protect species because 

of a lack of resources and a limited understanding of the status of species 

across their ranges. For example, some advocates said that the Services do 

not have sufficient information on species’ conditions to be able to 

accurately determine whether federal activities may jeopardize species. 

Finally, applicants and environmental advocates alike were concerned that 

the process lacks transparency. Some applicants said they found the 

process confusing; both applicants and environmental advocates said they 

were frustrated by not having a voice in decisions made in the process.

We are making recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to improve the 

information used to manage the consultation process. We are also 

recommending that the Secretaries of the Interior and Defense, the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Chief of the 

Forest Service work together to improve the transparency and consistency 

of the consultation process. These recommendations include reaching 

agreement on the amount of specificity needed in biological assessments 

and on the requirements of the process.

The Departments of the Army and the Interior, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Forest Service provided 
Page 6 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

comments on a draft of this report and generally concurred with our 

findings and recommendations. The agencies also provided overall 

comments and technical clarifications in some areas in this report. We have 

addressed these comments and clarifications where appropriate. The 

agencies’ comment letters and our responses are presented in appendixes 

II through V.

Background The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under 

the act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for protecting 

terrestrial, or land-dwelling, and freshwater animal and plant species; the 

National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for protecting oceandwelling species and anadromous species, such as salmon.2

 The act 

prohibits, without the appropriate exemption, the “taking” of any 

threatened or endangered species of fish or wildlife and defines “take” as to 

harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, hunt, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt any such conduct. Federal agencies must comply with 

prohibitions against taking species that are listed as threatened or 

endangered and must consult with the Services to ensure that their 

activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

destroy or adversely modify habitat designated as critical for those species. 

However, “taking” a species that is incidental to the purpose of a federal 

action and does not cause jeopardy or adverse modification may be 

permitted and, in practice, often is. Thus, the consultation process allows 

some activities to take place that may involve the incidental take of listed 

species, and helps federal agencies avoid adversely affecting listed species 

and designated critical habitat. Federal agencies are also directed by the 

Endangered Species Act to utilize their authorities to conserve threatened 

and endangered species. 

When a federal agency determines that an activity it intends to authorize, 

fund, or carry out may affect a listed species, the agency may initiate either 

an informal or a formal consultation with FWS or NMFS.3

 Informal 

consultation occurs when the agency has determined that an activity may 

2

Anadromous species live part of their lives in freshwater and part in saltwater.

3

If a federal agency determines that a proposed activity will have no effect on listed species 

(e.g., if no listed species or critical habitat exist in the area), then consultation is not 

required.
Page 7 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

affect but is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. If 

the Services agree, typically by issuing a letter of concurrence with the 

agency’s determination, then the agency may proceed with the activity 

without further consultation. Although there is no regulatory deadline for 

completing an informal consultation, each Service’s policy is to do so 

within 30 days of receiving a complete biological assessment or similar 

document. This assessment describes, among other things, the proposed 

activity and its likely effects on any listed species or habitat that may be 

present in the area of the proposed activity. 

On the other hand, if an action agency initially determines that an activity is 

likely to adversely affect a species, the action agency is required to initiate 

formal consultation by submitting a biological assessment or similar 

document.4

 The Services have up to 135 days (with the option for the 

Services and action agencies to agree to extensions) to conduct the 

consultation and document, in a biological opinion, whether the activity is 

likely to jeopardize the species’ continued existence or adversely modify its 

designated critical habitat and what actions, if any, are required to mitigate 

that impact.5,6

 (Such “jeopardy opinions” are not common; in fiscal year 

2003, for example, the Services issued only one biological opinion that 

identified proposed activities as potentially jeopardizing threatened and 

endangered species in the four states included in our review.) The Services 

may postpone the start of the 135-day time frame until they have sufficient 

information from the action agency on which to base their opinions. This is 

also true for the 30-day time frame for informal consultations.

In the northwestern United States, the consultation process is a prominent 

part of federal land management and federally authorized or funded 

activities because of the region’s combination of large areas of federal land 

and significant numbers of listed species. Endangered or threatened 

4

The Services may also request formal consultation if they disagree with an action agency’s 

determination that an activity is not likely to adversely affect listed species.

5

Required actions are intended to mitigate the activity’s impact by minimizing the extent of 

incidental take. 

6

The 135-day limit results from the combination of two time limits—the Endangered Species 

Act requires consultations to be completed within 90 days, and the implementing 

regulations require biological opinions to be delivered within 45 days after consultation has 

been completed. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(1)(A) and 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(e), respectively. Since, in 

practice, preparation of the biological opinion is considered part of the consultation 

process, we will be referring to the 135 days as the time for completing the consultation 

process. 
Page 8 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

species in this region include the northern spotted owl, grizzly bear, Canada 

lynx, bull trout, and various salmon species, or “runs.” Following are four 

of the many federal agencies that carry out activities in the Northwest that 

may require consultation under the Endangered Species Act.7

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) supports navigation of the 

nation’s waterways by maintaining and improving channels. Also, in 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, the Corps operates about a 

dozen multipurpose dams and reservoirs that provide flood control, 

generate hydroelectric power, protect fish and wildlife, and support 

recreation and other activities. In addition, the Corps issues permits for 

the discharge of dredge or fill material into U.S. waters; such discharges 

may occur in connection with dredging or building docks and other 

structures. 

• The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 36 million 

acres of federal land in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. The 

agency manages and issues permits for activities such as livestock 

grazing, recreation, mining, and timber harvesting.

• The Bureau of Reclamation delivers water and hydroelectric power 

throughout 17 western states. In the Northwest, it operates and 

maintains 28 dams and administers 54 reservoirs. 

• The Forest Service manages about 62 million acres of national forest in 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. The agency issues permits for 

and manages activities such as timber harvesting; recreation; livestock 

grazing; mining; environmental restoration; and rights of way for road 

construction, ski areas, and access to private land.

Balancing species’ needs with natural resource uses—both of which are 

among these federal agencies’ missions—can be difficult, as activities can 

vary widely in their effects on listed species (see fig. 1).8

7

FWS manages land in national wildlife refuges and, like other land-managing agencies, 

must consult with its own biologists—and with NMFS biologists, if appropriate—in 

determining the effect of its management activities on listed species. Similarly, when NMFS’ 

activities might affect a listed species, NMFS must consult with its own biologists (and with 

FWS biologists, if appropriate) about the activities’ likely effects. 

8

Many other federal agencies may need to consult on effects to species. The agencies 

include the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Transportation, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Page 9 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 1: Agencies Must Balance the Use of Natural Resources with the Protection 

of Species

The consultation workload for these agencies in the northwestern United 

States has increased dramatically since the late 1990s, largely as a result of 

the many species added to the list of species protected under the 

Endangered Species Act. The number of protected species increased more 

than 60 percent in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Several of 

these species have habitats that cover large areas of the Northwest. For 

example, in 1998 the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the bull trout, which 

occurs in major river basins across the four states, including the Columbia 

and Klamath basins, as well as in coastal areas such as Puget Sound in 

Washington. In 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed nine 

subspecies of salmon and steelhead that occur primarily in these river 

basins in Oregon and Washington. Figure 2 shows the far reach of just the 

Columbia River Basin. 

Sources: GAO, Nova Development Corporation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 10 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 2: Columbia River Basin 

Any activity occurring in or near these waterways and their smaller 

tributaries may require consultation. Consequently, federal agencies are 

consulting on many more activities than were subject to consultation 

before the 1998 and 1999 fish listings in order to protect listed species and 

their designated critical habitats. 

Portland

Montana

Seattle

Missoula

Willamette R.

Snake R.

Columbia R.

CA NV

CColumbia olumbia R River iver B Basin asin

Columbia R.

N

Canada

U.S.

Washington

Oregon

Idaho

Boise

Puget Sound

North

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 11 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Although actions taken by nonfederal parties may be subject to the 

consultation process, their direct involvement in the process varies from 

none to substantial. For some parties, such as individuals who apply for 

permits to graze livestock on federal lands, the consultation process may 

be invisible because the federal agency goes through consultation before it 

issues the permit. For other parties, such as individuals who apply for 

permits to construct private boat docks or corporations that apply for 

permits to harvest timber, the process is not only visible, but often requires 

their participation. In these cases, the individual or corporate permit 

applicant generally takes on the responsibility of preparing the biological 

assessment needed to initiate consultation.

Activities can vary widely in their effects on listed species, although 

relatively few are found to potentially jeopardize a species’ continued 

existence. For example, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects that may 

require consultation range from issuing permits for construction or 

modification of private docks to dredging operations in harbors and rivers. 

Similarly, Forest Service projects can range from trail maintenance to 

timber harvesting, and “decommissioning” or destruction of roads. 

Obviously, these projects vary in their complexity and the possible severity 

of their effects on species and their habitats. However, identifying the type 

and extent of effects on species often remains a difficult task for many of 

these activities because, as we reported in an August 2003 report, only 

limited information is frequently available on species’ ranges, biologies, 

and habitat needs.9

Mitigative actions that agencies or nonfederal parties may include in their 

projects in order to minimize impacts to species and their habitats also vary 

widely. For example, limitations may be placed on the time of year when a 

project can be conducted. In addition, mitigation may entail altering the 

methods used for conducting a project, such as leaving buffer zones around 

known nesting areas undisturbed. Fish ladders and fish barriers are other 

common mitigation measures employed to protect fish from the harmful 

effects of dams and other structures (see fig. 3).

9

U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best 

Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for Critical 

Habitat Designations, GAO-03-803 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2003).
Page 12 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 3: Workers Install Electric Fish Barrier Fabric on Canal Diversion Structure

Completeness of Data 

Maintained on 

Consultations Varied 

between the Services 

but Did Not Capture 

the Entire Process

The data available on consultations completed from fiscal years 1998 

through 2003 varied between the Services, but neither of the Services’ 

databases captured the entire consultation process. (Throughout this 

report, these data should be considered in the context of their associated 

error rates as explained in app. I.) The most comparable data we were able 

to obtain for the Services were for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and 

included consultations for all NMFS offices in the four states and for FWS’ 

Portland field office. These data showed that the Services completed about 

1,550 consultations, about 60 percent of which were completed on time. 

The remainder exceeded established time frames by intervals ranging from 

a few days to more than a year. However, our timeliness analysis 

underestimated the length of time it actually took to complete the entire 

consultation process because, in part, the Services’ data did not include the 

sometimes significant amount of time that the Services and action agencies 

spent in preconsultation discussions. 
Page 13 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Services Differed in the 

Data They Maintained on 

Consultations

NMFS and FWS differed in the completeness of data available on 

consultations. NMFS has a regional database that includes all consultations 

conducted by NMFS offices in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington;10 this 

database contains the two dates needed to calculate the timeliness of 

consultations (i.e., their compliance with established completion time 

frames). These two dates are the date the consultation was initiated and 

the date it was completed. We obtained NMFS electronic data on 

consultations for most of fiscal years 2001 through 2003.11 Before 2001, 

most NMFS field offices did not maintain readily available electronic data 

or did not consistently capture key dates needed to measure timeliness, 

such as the date on which a consultation was initiated. FWS implemented a 

three-state database in March 2003 for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington; 

before then, only its Portland field office maintained comparably reliable 

electronic data for fiscal years 2001 through 2003.12 Therefore, we obtained 

FWS data for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 for only the Portland field 

office. Of the six FWS offices in the four states we reviewed, the Portland 

office accounted for approximately 20 percent of all consultations 

completed in fiscal year 2002. We reported on similar data management 

issues in January 2001 about FWS’ field office in Carlsbad, California.13

Based on NMFS regional data and FWS Portland field office data, the 

Services completed almost 1,550 formal and informal consultations during 

fiscal years 2001 through 2003 with the four action agencies in Idaho, 

Montana, Oregon, and Washington. NMFS data accounted for more than 

1,200 of the consultations; about 80 percent were informal, and 70 percent 

of all the NMFS consultations were conducted with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Similarly, the majority of FWS Portland consultations were 

informal (more than 65 percent). For the total number of the Portland 

office’s consultations, more than 30 percent were conducted with each of 

three agencies—the Forest Service, BLM, and the Corps. The Bureau of 

10NMFS has no offices in Montana.

11Because the NMFS database was implemented in January 2001, we did not obtain data for 

the first quarter of fiscal year 2001.

12FWS’ Portland field office has maintained electronic data needed to measure timeliness 

since 1996.

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Fish And Wildlife Service: Challenges to Managing the 

Carlsbad, California, Field Office’s Endangered Species Workload, GAO-01-203

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2001).
Page 14 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Reclamation accounted for the least number of consultations—23 and 4 

with NMFS and FWS, respectively. 

Nearly Forty Percent of the 

Consultations Exceeded 

Time Frames

Our timeliness analysis revealed that nearly 40 percent of the 1,548 

consultations completed by the Services exceeded established time frames. 

For consultations completed during fiscal years 2001 through 2003, NMFS 

exceeded time frames 41 percent of the time, and FWS Portland exceeded 

time frames 31 percent of the time. Both Services missed established time 

frames, most often for informal consultations, which by policy are to be 

completed within 30 days. Most of the late informal consultations were 

completed within 60 days, although a small percentage of informal 

consultations (9 percent for FWS Portland and 16 percent for NMFS) were 

more than 90 days late. Overall, timeliness was better for formal 

consultations, which are to be completed within 135 days. NMFS 

completed 75 percent of its formal consultations on time, while FWS 

Portland completed 86 percent on time. During this period, both Services 

improved their timeliness on informal consultations, which account for 

most of their workloads. On formal consultations, in contrast, NMFS’ 

timeliness worsened over the 3 years, while FWS Portland’s improved. We 

did not find any obvious commonalities among the late consultations—they 

addressed various kinds of activities including livestock grazing, noxious 

weed control, and road use. Figures 4 and 5 show NMFS and FWS Portland 

timeliness data for formal and informal consultations over the 3 years.
Page 15 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 4: NMFS Timeliness for Formal and Informal Consultations

Note: Fiscal year 2001 data are only for the period January 1 through September 30, 2001.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003

38 98 97 205 367 414

Fiscal year

More than 90 days late

On time

1-30 days late

31-90 days late

Formal consultations - total 233

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Informal consultations - total 986

Percent
Page 16 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 5: FWS Portland Office Timeliness for Formal and Informal Consultations

33 55 24 85 82 50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

percent more than 90 days late

percent on time

percent 1-30 days late

percent 31-90 days late

Formal consultations - total 112

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Informal consultations - total 217

Percent
Page 17 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

According to officials at the Services, some consultations we identified as 

exceeding deadlines may have had agreed upon extensions that either were 

not reflected in their data systems or were identifiable in the systems only 

through review of individual consultation records. For example, the 

Services and action agencies may agree to extend time frames if a relevant 

study is nearing completion that would significantly inform the 

consultation process, or if an action agency decides to wait to consult on 

an individual project in order to combine it with consultation on future 

projects. In addition, NMFS officials said that in some cases it is not clear 

what discretion a federal agency has to make project modifications, for 

example, and this can result in consultation delays. FWS and Forest Service 

officials told us that there may be many valid reasons for the Services and 

action agencies to mutually agree to longer time frames, and that some 

delays occur at the request of the action agency. The inability to easily 

identify such extensions, however, does not allow the Services to provide 

explanations on their timeliness without manually reviewing administrative 

records for individual consultations. If such information were included and 

easily identifiable, the Services’ data systems would more accurately 

reflect timeliness. In addition, some officials at the Services and action 

agencies said that for some proposed projects they expect consultation to 

take a long time because the projects, and/or determining the status of and 

potential effects to protected species, are either extremely complex or 

controversial. 

Available Data Did Not 

Capture the Entire 

Consultation Process

For fiscal years 2001 through 2003, neither of the Services routinely tracked 

the entire consultation process. Specifically, FWS and NMFS did not 

routinely track the time spent on or level of effort devoted to 

preconsultation, which includes actions such as interagency discussions of 

the content and level of detail to be included in a biological assessment. 

NMFS officials told us that preconsultation can be very valuable because it 

may result in modifications to a project to reduce effects to listed species 

and designated critical habitat so that the action agency may not need to go 

through formal consultation. According to officials with the Services and 

action agencies, the time spent in preconsultation may sometimes be 

considerable because many issues and potential problems may need to be 

discussed and resolved. In fact, preconsultation may account for the 

majority of the time spent on the entire consultation process, although 

some of this time may be spent on complying with environmental 

requirements other than consultation. As a result, computation of only the 

time and level of effort spent after the “official” start of a consultation (the 

point at which the Services are satisfied that the biological assessment is 
Page 18 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

complete) may underrepresent the resources devoted to the process. Both 

Services now track actions taken in preconsultation in their systems and 

typically identify these actions as technical assistance. However, FWS’ 

system does not electronically link these activities to subsequent 

consultations easily, and neither of the Services is using these data to 

determine the level of effort expended on the entire consultation process. 

Without information on the time spent in or level of effort devoted to 

preconsultation, the Services cannot easily determine how long the entire 

consultation process really takes or respond to complaints that it takes too 

long, or determine how many resources are expended during 

preconsultation. Nor can the Services identify trends in timeliness or 

workload; determine whether delays in preconsultation occur more often 

in certain locations, with certain types of projects, or with certain agencies; 

or accurately gauge their resource investment in the entire consultation 

process. NMFS officials said they use data on the “official” consultation 

process (i.e., excluding preconsultation) to identify when consultations are 

exceeding time frames so managers can step in to determine what is 

needed to resolve the cause of the delay. 

Some officials at the Services noted that tracking preconsultation 

accurately would be challenging. Specifically, they said that simply tracking 

the time elapsed between an inquiry from an action agency about a 

proposed activity and the official start of a consultation will not reflect 

periods of time when neither the Services nor the action agency is actively 

working on the consultation. For example, some actions that take place 

during that interval might relate to other activities, other consultations, or 

other required environmental analyses. In addition, because much of the 

information generated during this interval may be applicable to processes 

other than consultation, such as analyses to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, officials said that it is difficult to apportion a 

specific amount of time to Endangered Species Act requirements.
Page 19 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Improvement Efforts 

Have Focused on 

Collaboration, 

Workload, and 

Information Sharing, 

but Their Effectiveness 

Is Unclear

The Services and action agencies have taken steps in three general 

categories to make the consultation process smoother and more efficient. 

These efforts focus on increasing collaboration, reducing workload, and 

increasing the consistency and transparency of the consultation process. 

While many officials praised these various efforts, their overall 

effectiveness is unclear because the Services have not comprehensively 

evaluated them. 

Services and Action 

Agencies Have Worked to 

Improve Collaboration

The Services and action agencies have taken various steps focused on 

improving interagency collaboration to make the consultation process 

smoother and more efficient. The largest such initiative, referred to as 

“streamlining,” began in 1995 and involves the Services and two action 

agencies—the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service—in the 

four states we reviewed. This initiative created interagency teams of 

biologists—known as Level 1 teams—that discuss proposed activities and 

their likely effects on listed species. One of the purposes of this effort was 

to encourage the Services and action agencies to work together on 

biological assessments in order to avoid later disagreements. As such, the 

Level 1 teams collaborate to identify an activity’s potential effect on listed 

species, determine what protective measures are needed for species, and 

reach consensus on what information is needed for a “complete” biological 

assessment. This consensus is particularly important to the timeliness of 

consultations, because a consultation officially begins only when the 

Services have received what they consider to be a complete biological 

assessment.14 According to FWS officials, implementation of streamlining 

generally requires a greater commitment of staff resources than the 

“traditional” consultation process. 

The streamlined process is intended, through Level 1 team communication, 

to discuss the types of concerns or issues that typically arise during 

consultation. FWS and Forest Service officials told us that streamlining 

should result in better projects that incorporate needed species and habitat 

protections into their designs early, rather than requiring after-the-fact 

14As discussed earlier, a complete assessment is one that contains information sufficient to 

enable the Services to determine how the proposed activity is likely to affect listed species. 
Page 20 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

changes that may cause delays in project implementation. Streamlining is 

also intended to eliminate what action agency officials described as a 

seemingly endless cycle of information requests. That is, in the traditional 

(nonstreamlined) consultation process, weeks or months may be spent 

fulfilling requests from the Services for additional information to resolve 

incomplete biological assessments (see fig. 6). 
Page 21 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

[This page intentionally left blank]
Page 22 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 6: Streamlined Consultation Process Seeks to Bypass the Iterative Cycle of 

Information Requests
Page 23 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Under the streamlined process, in theory, a biological assessment 

submitted to the Services should never be incomplete, because their 

biologists have collaborated with action agency biologists on decisions 

about the assessment’s key content. Accordingly, the interagency 

streamlining agreement specifies shorter time frames for the completion of 

a formal consultation conducted under the streamlined process—60 days 

as opposed to 135 days. For streamlined informal consultations, the 

completion time frame remains the same as for those conducted under the 
Page 24 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

traditional process—30 days. In addition to eliminating multiple 

information requests, the streamlined process should enable the Services 

to produce a biological opinion (which concludes the consultation process) 

more quickly than if the agencies did not collaborate up front. If a Level 1 

team is unable to resolve disagreements about a proposed activity or its 

effects, the team is supposed to elevate those disagreements to a Level 2 

team, which is composed of field-level managers. Any disagreements 

unresolved by a Level 2 team can be further elevated. 

In Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, the Level 1 streamlining teams meet to 

discuss specific proposed activities. In Montana, the streamlining process 

is implemented differently because of staffing limitations, according to 

officials. Instead of discussing specific activities, Montana team members 

discuss common problems that could impede consultation, in general, and 

work on solutions. For example, the Montana team developed a standard 

format for biological assessments to improve their consistency. The team 

also developed criteria that can be used to quickly identify (i.e., screen out) 

proposed activities that will either have no effect on species—and thus do 

not require consultation—or those that are unlikely to adversely affect 

species, and can therefore undergo an informal consultation. 

Other collaborative initiatives involving other action agencies and 

nonfederal parties have also emerged. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

uses a collaborative process in Montana to make the federal and state 

permitting process simpler and faster. The Corps holds a monthly meeting 

with officials from agencies involved in approving or issuing permits for 

work in or near bodies of water. At these meetings, attendees discuss 

complex or controversial activities that individuals are contemplating or 

for which permit applications have been submitted. Attendees generally 

represent the Corps; the Fish and Wildlife Service; the Environmental 

Protection Agency; the Montana Historical Society; and the Montana 

Departments of Environmental Quality, Natural Resources and 

Conservation, and Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; applicants are invited to attend 

the meetings as well. Not all proposed activities are discussed at the 

meetings—only those that may be of concern because of their location in a 

sensitive area, such as the Yellowstone River, or their likelihood of having a 

negative effect on listed or sensitive species.

In Portland, Oregon, the Services, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 

the city of Portland recently launched a collaborative process as well. In 

Portland, the collaborative process will be used for consultations on the 

city’s capital construction and maintenance activities, such as bridge repair 
Page 25 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

and storm water management, that receive federal funding or require 

permits from federal agencies such as the Corps. According to city officials, 

monthly meetings held as a part of the collaborative process should result 

in more efficient consultation because they will enable prompt discussion 

of projects and early identification of opportunities to consolidate multiple 

projects into a single consultation. 

In a different effort to improve collaboration, the Services opened new field 

offices closer to the action agency offices with which they routinely 

consult. Numerous officials at the Services and action agencies told us that 

the ability to work together in person helps them develop better working 

relationships that are important to smooth and efficient consultations. 

Previously, the distance between some Services and action agency 

locations made consultations difficult. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

opened suboffices in Chubbock, Idaho; and La Grande, Roseburg, Bend, 

and Newport, Oregon; in part to handle an increased consultation workload 

in these areas. NMFS opened offices in Grangeville and Salmon, Idaho; La 

Grande, Oregon; and Ellensburg, Washington. 

Services and Action 

Agencies Have Modified 

Some Consultations to 

Reduce Workload

To help reduce the workload associated with consultations while still 

protecting species, the Services, Bureau of Land Management, Forest 

Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have developed numerous 

“programmatic” consultations. These programmatic consultations can be 

lengthy or difficult to develop initially, but are intended to ultimately 

reduce workload associated with subsequent consultations. 

One type of programmatic consultation reduces workload by combining 

multiple proposed activities into a single consultation rather than 

consulting on each individual activity. For example, one such 

programmatic consultation in Oregon covers various permits for grazing on 

26 specific allotments on BLM lands. Prior to this programmatic 

consultation, BLM would have consulted individually on each of the 26 

grazing allotments. However, given that the activities occurring on the 

allotments are similar, as are the effects of those activities, combining them 

into a single consultation is more efficient. 

Another type of programmatic consultation may reduce the work involved 

in individual consultations by providing specific design criteria that, if 

followed, will generally ensure a quicker and more predictable approval 

process. For example, a programmatic consultation being developed by 

FWS for methane coal bed development activities on public lands in 
Page 26 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Montana prescribes mitigative actions, such as installing devices to deter 

bald eagles from perching on infrastructure, that proposed projects should 

include. Similarly, land use plans that must go through consultation—such 

as multiyear forest plans—may provide clear direction on approvable 

project designs by identifying design criteria intended to limit effects on 

species. Presumably, if a proposed activity adheres to the prescribed 

criteria, consultations will proceed more quickly. 

One type of programmatic consultation that officials discussed with us 

covered categories of routine activities, even though the action agency may 

not yet have identified specific projects that it planned to conduct. For 

example, one such programmatic consultation allowed up to 120 culvert 

replacement and removal projects per year on Forest Service lands in 

Washington and eastern Oregon. To be covered under this programmatic 

consultation, proposed activities must have met specific criteria, such as 

design standards and the time of year of the activity, to ensure that they did 

not adversely affect protected species or habitat. Qualified projects could 

proceed without individual consultation, although the action agency might 

have been required to report annually on the location and size of the 

completed projects. In contrast, another programmatic consultation of this 

type—covering 10 categories of routine activities, such as road and trail 

maintenance on federal lands in northwestern Oregon—did not restrict the 

number of projects that could be allowed during the consultation’s 5-year 

life span as long as they met specific design criteria. However, several court 

decisions have raised questions about the legality of these types of 

programmatic consultations.15 As a result, FWS and Forest Service officials 

informed us that they are recommending that all programmatic 

consultations include provisions for site-specific (or project-specific) 

analysis. 

Services and Action 

Agencies Have Taken Steps 

to Increase Consistency and 

Transparency

The Services and action agencies have taken numerous steps to increase 

the consistency and transparency of the consultation process. First, the 

Services and action agencies provide training for those involved in the 

process. For example, FWS provides weeklong introductory and advanced 

courses on the consultation process at its National Conservation Training 

15See, e.g., Pacific Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Assn’s, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 265 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2001), which held that in reaching a “no jeopardy” finding at 

a regional watershed level, NMFS acted improperly by failing to aggregate the effects of 

individual projects (at small sites in the watershed) on the entire watershed. 
Page 27 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Center in West Virginia. Anyone involved in the consultation process can 

take these courses. NMFS provides periodic training at its field offices, and 

both NMFS and FWS have offered interagency training courses at various 

action agency locations and are working on additional courses such as a 

course to assist action agencies in developing biological assessments. The 

Bureau of Land Management offers Endangered Species Act training two to 

three times a year, and the Bureau of Reclamation is developing a bureauwide training program on Endangered Species Act issues, including 

consultation. 

Second, the Services and action agencies have developed a variety of 

guidance documents on the consultation process. The Services’ 

consultation handbook, for example, was developed to aid Service 

biologists in implementing the consultation process, but it is also used by 

action agencies and others. The Bureau of Reclamation has its own draft 

handbook for complying with Endangered Species Act requirements, 

including consultations, which is currently being reviewed by the Services. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is developing a library of biological 

assessments to serve as examples for Corps staff going through the 

process. The Services have also issued numerous policy memos or 

guidance that address confusing or problematic aspects of consultation. 

For example, the Services issued guidance on how to assess the direct and 

indirect effects of right-of-way permits for access to private land. Such 

assessments have instigated significant disagreements among the Services 

and action agencies that the guidance hopes to resolve. 

Third, the Services and action agencies have taken advantage of the 

Internet and internal agency Web pages to disseminate information on the 

consultation process and some specific consultations. The Services, the 

Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service have an interagency 

Web site that links to the Endangered Species Act, its regulations, and key 

guidance documents. NMFS has a Web site with links to final biological 

opinions and its consultation tracking system so that action agencies and 

others can identify the status of specific consultations; NMFS also has an 

internal Web site with agency guidance. FWS’ regional office in Portland, 

Oregon, has a similar Web site for consultations conducted in Idaho, 

Oregon, and Washington. NMFS and FWS are working together to 

standardize an online template for developing a biological assessment. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a Web site that provides information on 

the requirements of its permitting program, including permitted activities 

that must go through the consultation process. Reclamation officials told 
Page 28 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

us that they make biological assessments developed by Reclamation staff 

available to assist other staff in the agency in preparing these assessments. 

Last, officials at both the Services and action agencies have used site visits 

to educate stakeholders about proposed activities and their likely effects 

on listed species. According to several officials at the Services and action 

agencies, seeing the site of a proposed activity firsthand is invaluable to 

understanding the activity and its likely effects on species and habitat (fig. 

7). 

Figure 7: Site Visit to Culvert Replacement Project on Forest Service Land

A Corps official told us that he has taken biologists with the Services out on 

dredges to increase the biologists’ understanding of dredging operations 

and their likely effect on species. In another example, site visits were 

important in achieving agreement on a proposed development plan for a ski 

area in Washington. A Forest Service biologist convened on-site meetings 

of all the stakeholders in the consultation about the proposed plan. These 

stakeholders—representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest 

Service, the ski area, the state, and a local hunting group—walked through 

the proposed development areas and discussed ways to prevent the 
Page 29 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

development from adversely affecting the species involved, including the 

Canada lynx. This on-site collaboration, according to the Forest Service 

biologist, not only resulted in stakeholder consensus on revisions to the 

development plan, but may also have forestalled litigation by the state and 

the local hunting group, which had previously opposed the proposed 

development plan. 

Effectiveness of 

Improvement Efforts Is 

Unclear 

Owing in part to actions taken to improve the consultation process, many 

officials from the Services and action agencies who responded to our 

survey believe that the process has improved since the late 1990s. Of the 56 

survey respondents who had been involved in consultations for at least the 

past 5 years, 33 (nearly 60 percent) said the process had improved. The 

perception of improvement was strongest in the Services, with 12 of the 14 

who responded to this question citing improvements. Slightly more than 

half of the 40 action agency respondents also indicated that the process had 

improved. BLM respondents cited the process as improved more often than 

Forest Service respondents. 

More than half of the officials from the Services, BLM, and Forest Service 

who participated in our survey cited beneficial effects of streamlining, such 

as increased trust between the Services and action agencies, better 

communication, and earlier involvement in projects, which many officials 

emphasized as important for consultations to run efficiently. One Bureau of 

Land Management official said that the process of having Level 1 teams 

agree on the draft biological assessment lessens the chance that 

consultations will be prolonged by one or more requests from the Services 

for additional information from the action agency. City of Portland officials 

said that they are seeing similar benefits from their streamlining agreement 

with the Services, even though the agreement is in the early stages of 

implementation. These benefits include increased coordination among the 

city’s bureaus and faster approval of Corps permits, which in turn have led 

to quicker implementation of city projects. As for the addition of new 

offices, several officials at the Services and action agencies mentioned 

their importance in enhancing professional working relationships and 

collaboration. 

Some of the officials with the Services and action agencies who responded 

to our survey also indicated that the use of programmatic consultations has 

improved the consultation process in the last several years. Numerous 

other officials at the Services and action agencies we interviewed also 

noted that programmatic consultations have increased the efficiency of the 
Page 30 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

consultation process. For example, the Corps cited several benefits of a 

programmatic consultation for dock construction and repair; it has 

reduced the number of individual consultations required and provided 

more certainty to applicants and Corps officials as to which designs the 

Services would accept without formal consultation. Permit reviewers at the 

Corps have encouraged applicants to use such designs in order to speed 

their applications. 

Perceived improvements in the consultation process, however, cannot be 

attributed solely to the efforts of the Services and action agencies, as 

survey respondents identified several other factors that make the 

consultation process work well. These included effective teamwork 

between the Services and action agencies—particularly in instances where 

officials at the Services and action agencies had worked together long 

enough to develop trust—good interpersonal skills of staff involved in the 

consultation process, and increased experience with and knowledge of the 

consultation process in general, and with species such as the bull trout in 

particular. Our survey and interviews indicate that some officials believe 

that the consultation process is now less contentious because people have 

been working together longer and more frequently. 

Although the Services and action agencies have done limited evaluations of 

some of the improvement efforts, they have not assessed whether the 

efforts aimed at reducing workload and speeding up consultations are 

achieving their original goals. The Forest Service and an interagency team 

have evaluated problems with streamlining such as causes for delays. The 

interagency team, which is composed of officials from the Services, BLM, 

and the Forest Service, conducts reviews periodically throughout the year, 

evaluating issues such as procedures, management plans, and selected 

biological opinions. However, none of the evaluations has analyzed 

whether the strategy of investing resources in preconsultation actually 

reduces the work and time spent on consultations while maintaining 

necessary protection for species and habitat. Our timeliness analysis 

indicates that this strategy has not always resulted in streamlined formal 

consultations’ meeting the expected shortened time frame of 60 days. 

Although many streamlined consultations are completed within established 

time frames—with some completed in very little time—we found that the 

Services did not conclude streamlined formal consultations within the 60-

day time frame for about 46 percent and 62 percent of FWS and NMFS 

streamlined formal consultations, respectively. Figures 8 through 15 show 

our timeliness analyses for all the consultations we reviewed. 
Page 31 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 8: FWS Portland Office Streamlined Formal Consultations

75

150

225

300

375

450

525

600

0

15

30

45

60

70

Days to complete

Fiscal years 2001 through 2003

Total consultations = 69

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

135 days

60 days
Page 32 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 9: FWS Portland Office Nonstreamlined Formal Consultations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

210

320

430

540

650

760

870

980

1090

1200

Days to complete

Fiscal years 2001 through 2003

Total consultations = 43

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

135 days
Page 33 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 10: FWS Portland Office Streamlined Informal Consultations

Days to complete

Fiscal years 2001 through 2003

30 days

Total consultations = 95

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

79

80

160

240

320

400

480

560

640

720

800
Page 34 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 11: FWS Portland Office Nonstreamlined Informal Consultations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

69

70

126

182

238

294

350

Days to complete

Fiscal years 2001 through 2003

Total consultations = 122

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

30 days
Page 35 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 12: NMFS Streamlined Formal Consultations
Page 36 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 13: NMFS Nonstreamlined Formal Consultations
Page 37 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 14: NMFS Streamlined Informal Consultations

70

130

190

250

310

370

430

490

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

69

30 days

Days

January 2001 through September 2003

Total consultations = 286

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Page 38 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 15: NMFS Nonstreamlined Informal Consultations

Many of the “streamlined” formal consultations that exceeded the 

shortened 60-day time frame, also exceeded the 135-day time frame for 

nonstreamlined formal consultations (as figures 8 and 12 show). For 

NMFS, 18 of the 60 (30 percent) streamlined formal consultations 

completed during fiscal years 2001 through 2003 exceeded 135 days. Data 

from the FWS Portland office show that 13 of the 69 (19 percent) 

streamlined formal consultations completed in that office in fiscal years 

2001 through 2003 took longer than 135 days. Furthermore, given that the 

Services do not know how much time and effort is spent in 

preconsultation, as discussed previously, the Services cannot know if 

streamlining is simply shifting time and effort typically spent in 

consultation to preconsultation, or if they are spending more resources on 

the entire consultation process under streamlining as compared to 

nonstreamlined consultations. 

We also heard concerns from some officials that the streamlining process 

can still take a long time to complete, although not everyone thought that 

81

140

200

260

320

380

440

500

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Days

January 2001 through September 2003

Total consultations = 700

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

30 days
Page 39 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

long time frames were necessarily bad. FWS and Forest Service officials 

told us that in addition to reducing time frames, streamlining is also 

intended to help ensure that consultations are completed when the action 

agencies are ready to implement their actions, even if the streamlined 

consultation takes as long as it would have under the normal process. One 

FWS biologist said that streamlining has improved the consultation process 

because of the improved relationships and mutual understanding of each 

other’s jobs, but that it requires more effort. In this official’s opinion, 

however, the time is well spent because discussions take place before 

projects are final, so the relationship is less adversarial and the 

consultation outcome is better, such as fewer effects on species and 

habitat, or cheaper project modifications. Once a biological assessment is 

agreed to and is provided to the Services to start the official consultation, 

she said it is concurred with quickly because of the work and agreements 

reached on the Level 1 team. FWS officials told us they have committed a 

lot of resources to implement streamlining but do not know whether the 

effort has been effective. A FWS official said that if streamlining proves 

effective, he would like to implement it with other agencies, but he was 

unsure whether the Service could commit the resources to do so. A NMFS 

official told us that conducting a comprehensive evaluation of streamlining 

would take resources that the Service does not have. We also heard 

concerns about the use of programmatic consultations, particularly on the 

part of some officials at the Services, because of the legal vulnerabilities 

discussed earlier. FWS and Forest Service officials informed us that they 

are recommending that all programmatic consultations include provisions 

for site-specific (or project-specific) analysis because of this vulnerability. 

Federal Concerns 

about the Consultation 

Process Center on 

Workload and Process 

Requirements

Despite efforts to improve the consultation process, officials at the 

Services and action agencies remain concerned about two primary issues. 

First, officials at the Services and action agencies are concerned that their 

workloads remain heavy, even though staff levels have increased in recent 

years, and it compromises their ability to complete all consultations in a 

timely manner. Second, officials at the Services and action agencies 

sometimes disagree about the extent to which consultation is necessary. 

Officials at the action agencies believe that the Services sometimes 

recommend consultation when it is not really necessary and that they 

request similarly unnecessary amounts of scientific analysis and 

documentation on potential effects. Officials at the Services told us that 

they believe they are appropriately fulfilling their responsibilities under the 

act to protect listed species and designated critical habitat. 
Page 40 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Services and Action 

Agencies Worry about 

Continued Resource 

Constraints 

Staffing shortages at the Services were the predominant concern about the 

consultation process among the 66 survey respondents. It was the most 

important concern among the Services, Corps, and Bureau of Reclamation 

respondents, with Forest Service and BLM respondents also identifying it 

among their top concerns. In addition to the survey respondents, other 

officials at the Services and action agencies we interviewed also expressed 

concerns about a lack of resources to deal with the consultation workload 

at the Services and at the action agencies. 

The Services have increased staff levels since the late 1990s to deal with 

their increasing workloads. NMFS estimates of staff levels for its 

Northwest region for fiscal years 1999 through 2002 show a nearly 80-

percent increase in staffing levels (from 48 full-time equivalents to 86).16

FWS staffing level estimates for its Portland, Klamath Falls, and Spokane 

field offices show a 58-percent increase for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 

(from 24 to 38).17 In some cases, these increases are primarily the result of 

the National Fire Plan that provides funding for biologists at the Services to 

specifically work on consultations for fire-related activities. 

Despite these increases, however, officials at the Services told us that they 

still do not have enough resources to handle their consultation workloads 

in a timely fashion. For example, data provided by the FWS Portland field 

office show that the number of consultations for which each biologist was 

responsible increased about 90 percent between fiscal years 1998 through 

2002, while resources increased about 40 percent. NMFS officials said that 

they have added staff since the mid-1990s to deal with increasing workload, 

but that the increase has never been enough. Data we analyzed from NMFS 

for January 2001 through fiscal year 2003 show that its workload doubled 

during this period. As a result, officials at both Services told us they often 

divert resources from other endangered species activities to help complete 

consultations. This situation is consistent with our findings in a June 2002 

report on FWS budgeting for endangered species activities.18 We found that 

FWS field office supervisors in all regions reported that a lack of funds and 

16This includes the nine NMFS offices in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington that conduct 

consultations with the agencies we evaluated; NMFS does not have offices in Montana. 

17Other FWS field offices did not provide estimates. 

18U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species Program: Information on How 

Funds Are Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized, GAO-02-581 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 25, 2002). 
Page 41 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

shortage of staff adversely affected their operations, with consultations 

being the most frequently identified area with insufficient resources. 

Furthermore, many action agency officials complained of too few 

experienced staff at the Services to handle the consultation workload. In 

particular, almost all action agency officials we interviewed in Montana 

said that FWS resources in the state were woefully inadequate given the 

service’s consultation workload. For example, one Forest Service official in 

Montana, who had been involved in consultations elsewhere in the 

Northwest, said she was astounded by the small number of biologists 

conducting consultations at FWS’ office in Montana, given the workload, 

compared with the other three states included in our review.19

Action agencies also expressed concern about a continuing imbalance in 

their workload and staff levels. For example, according to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the number of consultations that the Corps conducted 

each year increased almost 300 percent between fiscal years 1999 and 2002, 

while staff devoted to consultations increased by about 60 percent during 

this period.20 Between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, Bureau of Reclamation 

officials said that they doubled the number of their staff devoted to 

consultations in the Pacific Northwest Region from a staff level of four fulltime equivalents in fiscal year 1998 to eight in fiscal year 2002. Reclamation 

estimated that its number of consultations increased by almost 85 percent 

between fiscal years 1998 and 2001, but then declined in fiscal year 2002 to 

about 20 percent more than its fiscal year 1998 workload. Reclamation 

officials told us that, while the agency does not conduct many individual 

consultations, the projects they must consult on are large and very 

complex, such as those for ongoing water supply and dam operations. 

The persistent imbalance between workload and resources is frustrating 

for staff with the Services and action agencies. Officials from the Services 

said that they are constantly trying to keep up with their workload and 

must neglect other duties such as monitoring species or agency actions. 

Action agency staff are frustrated because biologists at the Services cannot 

review their proposed projects in a timely fashion. Compounding workload 

concerns is the belief of many officials at the Services and action agencies 

we interviewed that their consultation workload will continue to grow as 

19Montana is in a different FWS region than Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. 

20These data are for Corps consultations and staff in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington; the 

Corps’ consultation workload in Montana is negligible. 
Page 42 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

projects become more complex, and the Services consult on activities that 

have not undergone consultation in the past. For example, several officials 

expect that oil and gas activity on federal lands will expand, and that the 

associated consultations will likely be complex.

Staffing level problems are exacerbated by high turnover of biologists at 

the Services. Officials at the Services said they constantly struggle to keep 

staff. NMFS officials told us that, given its controversial nature, 

consultation work is very stressful, and sometimes staff experience burnout. When seasoned biologists leave, they are sometimes replaced by staff 

that are not knowledgeable about the consultation process or action 

agency programs and projects. In such situations, the more senior 

biologists at the Services must not only take time away from their work to 

train the new biologists, but also take on additional work until the new staff 

are up to speed. Working with newly hired biologists is frustrating for 

action agency staff because they too must take time to educate the new 

biologists at the Services about the agency’s programs and activities. Thus, 

gaining additional staff is somewhat of a double-edged sword, according to 

officials at the Services and action agencies—additional staff are needed, 

but it takes time to train them. In the meantime, consultations are 

postponed or take longer than usual to complete. Officials with the 

Services also told us that the considerable number of staff positions funded 

through the National Fire Plan are hard to keep filled, as they are 

temporary positions and do not provide for job security or promotion. High 

turnover also affects the success of collaborative efforts, such as 

streamlining, that many officials said are dependent on good working 

relationships that take time to develop. 

As a result of these staffing problems, some action agencies have 

arrangements with the Services, such as through reimbursable or 

interagency personnel agreements, to have biologist positions at the 

Services to specifically work on, or give priority to, their respective 

consultations. Agency officials told us that they have resorted to this 

method to ensure that their proposed projects get through the consultation 

process in a reasonable amount of time. For example, one BLM office 

provides funding, through an interagency agreement, for a FWS biologist 

position in Billings that is devoted to consultations related to BLM field 

offices’ revisions to resource management plans. As mentioned previously, 

the National Fire Plan also provides resources for biologists at the Services 

so that consultations related to fire activities can be completed 

expeditiously. 
Page 43 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Services and Action 

Agencies Disagree about the 

Extent of Consultation 

Needed

A major concern identified by survey respondents and others we 

interviewed was that the Services and action agencies sometimes disagree 

about the extent to which consultation is needed. While action agency 

officials recognized the benefit of the consultation process to species, 

many also thought that the process had gotten out of control, that they 

were consulting on many more activities than was necessary, and that 

consultations were going beyond what was called for by the Endangered 

Species Act. For example, although action agencies have the authority 

under the act to decide whether to consult with the Services about their 

activities, many action agency officials said they are reluctant not to 

consult with the Services even if they believe that their activities will not 

affect listed species. Some action agency officials told us that if they do not 

get the Services’ concurrence on a proposed activity, they feel vulnerable to 

legal challenge. Similarly, action agency officials complained about the 

need to consult on activities likely to have only minor effects on species. 

Some officials felt that it was most important to spend time consulting with 

the Services on activities that were likely to have major effects on species. 

They said that they know how to avoid jeopardizing species while carrying 

out their activities, but that their professional expertise is not recognized. 

Officials with the Services said that the purpose of the consultation process 

is to consider the potential effects of proposed activities regardless of 

whether they are positive or negative and to avoid jeopardizing species’ 

continued existence and adversely modifying their critical habitat. For 

example, the consultation handbook states that consultation should be 

conducted on activities with “insignificant, discountable, or completely 

beneficial” effects in addition to those with clearly negative effects. Some 

officials with the Services emphasized that they cannot ignore their 

responsibility to consult on every action that may affect species or their 

habitats, and that they must show some level of good faith effort to do so. 

The Services also pointed out, however, that under the act and its 

implementing regulations, activities that are not likely to adversely affect 

species may undergo a less burdensome consultation process (i.e., 

informal consultation). FWS officials told us that the consultation process 

provides considerable benefits to species and, in some cases, to action 

agencies. For example, in some cases, consultation may result in a project 

that better maintains the integrity of the ecosystem of concern (that would 

include designated critical habitat) that may provide an agency action more 

flexibility to carry out future activities in the ecosystem than it otherwise 

would have had. FWS officials also told us that while they respect the 

professional expertise of the action agencies, that expertise, the 

information available, and the perspective of the action agencies are 
Page 44 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

typically focused on conservation of species on their respective lands while 

the Services are responsible for conserving species throughout their 

ranges. 

Some action agency officials believe that the Services spend too much time 

and effort scrutinizing short-term negative effects of proposed activities 

that, in the long run, would be benign or beneficial to species or habitat. 

These officials said that the Services tend to overlook the overall benefits 

of these activities and instead focus the consultation too heavily on the 

short-term effects. For example, activities such as replacing or repairing 

culverts, obliterating roads, or reducing forest fuels can have short-term 

negative impacts (such as increased sediment in the water or temporarily 

increased traffic in wildlife habitat) but can also have long-term benefits 

(such as enhanced fish passage, reduced sediment in fish habitat, and 

lower likelihood of catastrophic wildfires). Replacement of pier and dock 

structures provides a good illustration of the conflict between short-term 

impacts and long-term benefits (see fig. 16). 
Page 45 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 16: Replacement of Creosote-Treated Wood Pilings with Steel Pilings 

Note: Replacing creosote-treated wood pilings with steel pilings has many benefits. Not only does the 

replacement remove toxic creosote from the water, but steel pilings require no maintenance and, 

hence, no future disturbance to the ecosystem. However, when a vibratory hammer is used to install 

the steel pilings, the sound waves can harm fish. To minimize the potential harm, NMFS requests the 

use of a mitigation method, such as this one, which generates a protective curtain of air bubbles 

around the installation site to minimize the transport of sound waves. In some cases, NMFS also 

requests that a diver be hired to observe any fish injuries that may result from the installation. Some 

Left to right: Frame of mitigation equipment being deployed around a new steel piling to be installed; 

steel piling being installed with mitigation equipment operating to replace creosote-treated wood piling.
Page 46 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

seaport officials find it difficult to justify the cost of such protective measures; they believe the longterm benefits should offset any immediate harm. 

Officials at the Services pointed out that consultation is required for 

activities that have negative short-term effects even if the activities have 

long-term beneficial effects.21 Officials at the Services also said that action 

agencies are sometimes too quick to discount negative effects or to ascribe 

benefits to their activities without fully understanding the limitations. A 

NMFS official provided an example of a project to replace a dam used to 

divert river water for irrigation. The replacement dam was built, in part, to 

increase habitat for listed salmon species and reduce the possibility of take 

of listed species during the frequent maintenance activities that the older 

dam required. Despite the protective barriers included in the new dam, 

after its completion, officials found dead fish that had accessed the 

diversion through an alternate channel and were crushed against the inside 

of the barrier. A further project review revealed the potential for fish 

caught in the diversion conduit to be sent falling onto exposed rock. FWS 

and Forest Service officials told us that many projects that have long-term 

benefits to listed species result in short-term adverse effects including take 

that can be authorized through the formal consultation process. Another 

factor that NMFS officials explained could add to the significance of shortterm negative effects is that the Services must consider aggregated impacts 

of numerous activities in an area when they are evaluating the potential 

effects of a single activity (see fig. 17). 

21See Pacific Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Assn’s, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

265 F.3d 1028, 1037 (9th Cir. 2001). 
Page 47 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 17: Numerous Docks and Piers Line the Shoreline of Lake Washington

Note: A NMFS official recognized that some people believe that requested mitigation actions seem 

excessive for a single project; however, he explained that they are required to assess the aggregated 

effects of projects in an area. In Lake Washington, there are countless docks and piers that individually 

may not have a significant effect on species, but when taken together, their effects could be 

considerable.

In addition, some action agency officials said the Services sometimes 

request that they conduct studies or do monitoring to develop new 

information about a species or its habitat. Action agency officials pointed 

out that the consultation process requires agencies to use the best available 

information, not develop new information. Some officials believe that this 

is the Services’ way of gathering new information on species because they 

do not have the resources to conduct their own research. For example, 

Corps officials told us that for one of their proposed activities they were 

asked to conduct sophisticated hydrologic monitoring because FWS 

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 48 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

speculated that a proposed Corps activity might result in the transport of 

contaminants in sediment to salmon habitat. However, the Corps asserted 

that it provided studies showing that the suspected contaminants were not 

present in the sediment and, therefore, the monitoring was not needed. 

Under consultation regulations, the Services can ask that additional studies 

be conducted, but the action agencies can refuse; in that case, the Services 

should proceed with issuing their biological opinions using the best 

available information without the requested studies. The consultation 

handbook suggests that the Services explain to action agencies that 

gathering more information may ultimately be in the their best interests if 

the information yielded allows the Services to be less conservative in their 

biological opinion. Specifically, the handbook states that if significant data 

gaps exist, the Services can either extend the due date for completing the 

biological opinion until sufficient information is developed or issue their 

opinion with the available information, giving the benefit of the doubt to 

the species. 

Finally, some action agency officials expressed concern that the Services 

are taking the consultation process beyond what is actually called for in the 

Endangered Species Act. Some action agency officials said that they feel 

they are forced to compromise their project designs too much in order to 

avoid receiving an opinion from the Services that their proposed activity 

may jeopardize a species’ continued existence or adversely modify its 

critical habitat (often simply referred to as “jeopardy”). While action 

agency officials recognized their responsibilities to conserve threatened 

and endangered species, some officials believe that, in some cases, the 

Services are requesting project changes or mitigative actions during the 

consultation process that are intended to help recover species, not just 

avoid jeopardy (see fig. 18). 
Page 49 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Figure 18: Caving Streambed along a Railway Posed a Safety Hazard 

Note: The project restored the integrity of the railbed. However, in the opinion of the railroad company’s 

consultant, FWS requested extensive fish and wildlife habitat restoration beyond what existed in the 

current condition and beyond what was necessary to shore up the failing riverbank and avoid 

jeopardizing species or habitat. While not detectable in the photograph, the railroad company installed 

extensive plantings of willows in the restored riverbank areas to create a riparian area. FWS officials 

disagreed that this was excessive because, they said, without the plantings of trees and shrubs, the 

bank stabilization would be only temporary. FWS officials added that project modifications or mitigation 

that only protect species or habitat in the short-term do not fulfill the action agencies’ responsibilities 

under the consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. 

Officials with the Services and action agencies told us there is a negative 

perception about a FWS or NMFS determination that an agency’s proposed 

activity will jeopardize a species. Therefore, action agency officials said 

they often feel compelled to modify their activities or implement mitigative 

actions they do not believe are necessary to avoid jeopardy. Action agency 

officials asserted that this is the reason that the Services issue so few 

opinions identifying potential jeopardy to a species each year.

Left to right: Caving railbed posed a safety hazard; restoration effort to provide stability to railbed and habitat.
Page 50 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Interior’s Assistant Secretary for Water and Science addressed this issue 

last year at a Bureau of Reclamation conference by asserting that while 

Reclamation will implement conservation measures for species when 

practicable, the agency should not include components in its proposed 

activities that it believes are not necessary for avoiding negative effects to 

species. Reclamation reiterated this stance in a policy statement 

recognizing that this new policy may result in the agency receiving 

jeopardy opinions in some cases. Reclamation officials told us that it would 

help if the Services were clearer as to which activities were essential to 

avoiding harm to a species and its habitat and which would be beneficial to 

broader recovery efforts. 

Officials at the Services told us that, because there have been very few 

jeopardy opinions issued, they believe the consultation process is working. 

They recognize that there is a negative perception surrounding the issuance 

of a jeopardy opinion, and that action agencies typically do quite a bit to 

avoid getting such an opinion. However, they see the process of working 

through issues in order to avoid a jeopardy opinion or the need for formal 

consultation as a success, rather than an example of the Services coercing 

agencies to modify their activities unnecessarily. 

Action agency officials thought the documentation needed for the 

consultation process was similarly getting out of control. Specifically, they 

said they were being asked to provide the same level of detail and scientific 

analysis for activities that were unlikely to affect species as for those that 

were likely to have negative effects. A major point of contention with 

regard to documentation was the amount of detail requested by the 

Services in a biological assessment. Typical disagreements about the 

information needed for a “complete” biological assessment, according to 

officials at the Services and action agencies, deal with the scope and design 

of the activity, its likely effects on species, and the baseline against which 

to assess those effects. For example, Bureau of Reclamation officials told 

us that the Services request that they assess the effects of dam operation 

and maintenance activities against a pre-dam environmental baseline (i.e., 

against conditions that existed before the dam was built). Reclamation 

officials said that they disagree with this definition of environmental 

baseline, asserting that it would be appropriate for construction of a new 

dam, but not for operation and maintenance of an existing one. 

Consultation regulations and the consultation handbook discuss the 

environmental baseline as including the past and present impacts of all 

federal, state, and private actions in the area of a proposed project so that 

the factors leading to, and possibly still affecting, the current status of a 
Page 51 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

protected species can be understood. Reclamation officials told us that 

they are in the process of working out their differences with the Services 

on how effects will be analyzed for operations and maintenance at existing 

facilities. 

Overall, action agency officials believe that the Services often request too 

much information and that, even though activities with minor impacts may 

be consulted on informally, informal consultations sometimes entail as 

much documentation and time as do formal consultations on more harmful 

activities. For example, Forest Service officials told us that disagreements 

on the information needed to assess effects has been a primary cause of 

mistrust with the Services, and Bureau of Reclamation officials said that 

the Services should more clearly explain what information is lacking and 

why the additional information is necessary for determining the likely 

effects of an activity. 

According to officials at the Services, despite increased guidance, they still 

receive many biological assessments with insufficient detail to judge a 

project’s effects, and in those cases the Services may make repeated 

requests for more detailed information until they are satisfied that the 

assessment adequately addresses the effects of the proposed activity on the 

species; this may increase the length of time it takes an action agency to 

complete the entire consultation process. FWS officials said that the 

Services would likely request the same level of detail and scientific analysis 

for projects that are not likely to effect listed species or designated critical 

habitat as they do for projects that are likely to effect them, because they 

generally need the same type of information to evaluate the potential 

effects to species; in this regard, FWS officials noted that they are 

compelled by the Administrative Procedure Act to articulate a satisfactory 

basis and explanation for their actions. FWS officials also told us that if an 

action agency is comfortable with its own determination of “no effects” for 

a project, the agency would not need to request the Services’ concurrence, 

and accordingly, not need to respond to potential information requests. 

NMFS officials told us that the online template that the Services are 

developing for biological assessments should eliminate some of the 

disagreements about the content and adequacy of the assessments. 

Because of these disagreements, action agency officials feel that, in 

practice, they are investing the same amount of resources for activities that 

are unlikely to harm species as for activities that are highly likely to harm 

species. That is, the officials feel that all proposed activities receive a 

similar level of scrutiny, require a similar amount of documentation, and 
Page 52 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

consume a similar amount of time and effort in consultation, regardless of 

their potential effect. According to a Forest Service biologist with 25 years 

of experience, today’s consultation approach means that the Forest Service 

has to consult on every activity, no matter how inconsequential. In effect, 

she said, the current process does not allow for any decisions to be based 

on the action agency biologists’ professional judgments. Some action 

agency officials told us that, given persistent staffing constraints, this did 

not seem to be the most effective approach. Service officials noted that 

they must consult on activities that may affect species regardless of the 

potential severity of the effects. However, a NMFS official said that the 

streamlining process includes a risk-based approach to the level of effort 

devoted to consultations, in that streamlining teams will focus on proposed 

projects with a higher likelihood of adverse effects. 

We identified several reasons for disagreements about the extent of 

consultation. Officials at the Services and action agencies alike cited the 

fear of litigation among the most significant concerns with the consultation 

process that often affects their decisions about whether or not to consult 

on projects and the level of documentation to complete. The Services have 

been affected by a number of federal court decisions in Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington involving the consultation process. Past court 

decisions have sometimes required the Services to re-do analyses because 

their conclusions did not have adequate support, or required consultation 

on activities that had not gone through the process. Action agency officials 

said that this has led the Services to apply the same level of scrutiny to all 

activities, regardless of the level of risk they pose to listed species. Action 

agency officials believe that the Services attempt to ensure that all 

biological assessments are “bulletproof” or so comprehensive that they are 

impervious to legal challenge. Action agency officials told us that they 

believe such scrutiny and documentation is not always necessary, and that 

complying with such requests from the Services adds to the time and cost 

of consultation. 

Conversely, officials at the Services asserted that the outcomes of court 

decisions have established the need to consult on all activities that may 

affect species, regardless of whether the effects are negative or positive, 

and to clearly document how they came to their decisions regarding the 

activities’ effects on species and habitat. Some action agency officials 

recognized that the outcome of litigation similarly causes them to put more 

details in their biological assessments than they otherwise would. For 

example, Bureau of Reclamation officials said that increases in 

Endangered Species Act related litigation have increased the need for 
Page 53 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

improved documentation that is more defensible in court, which might 

include more details about a project, additional graphics, maps, charts, and 

increased scientific analyses. Litigation has also resulted in more 

management, editing, and legal review. Forest Service officials also 

acknowledged the fear of litigation saying that it is pervasive across the 

Forest Service, and results in the agency including more details in its own 

analyses and documentation. 

Another factor leading to disagreements is that some officials at the 

Services and action agencies still do not understand each other’s programs 

or the consultation process, despite efforts to provide training, guidance, 

and other information. More than one-half of the respondents to our survey 

said they were concerned that new biologists at the Services do not receive 

sufficient training in the consultation process; respondents were also 

concerned that new action agency biologists do not receive sufficient 

training. Officials at the Services and action agencies agreed that biologists 

at the Services are sometimes unfamiliar with action agency programs and 

activities, and that the time required for Service biologists to learn about 

activities and how they may negatively affect species can lengthen the 

consultation process. High turnover among biologists at the Services is one 

factor that contributes to this lack of familiarity with action agency 

activities. Also, a BLM official said that action agency biologists sometimes 

do not understand the potential complexity of the consultation process and 

underestimate the length of time it may take. This official said that training 

on the consultation process is needed for both new and experienced staff. 

Personality problems were also identified among the top concerns for the 

Services and action agencies and an issue that can result in disagreements 

between the Services and action agencies about the extent of consultation 

needed. Officials at the Services and action agencies said that sometimes 

officials take unyielding positions on consultations, either on behalf of the 

activity or the listed species, and they waste time arguing about 

philosophical positions rather than rationally working through project 

effects. In these instances, the process takes much longer to complete than 

when participants are able to compromise. In other cases, officials told us 

that some individuals that are key to the consultation process lack the 

interpersonal or negotiation skills necessary to resolve conflicts that arise 

in the process. In some areas, staff were able to overcome philosophical 

differences because they have been working together for several years and 

have developed trust. In areas where there is high staff turnover or 

unyielding personalities, trust has been harder to develop. 
Page 54 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Nonfederal Parties’ 

Concerns Depended on 

Their Expectations of 

the Consultation 

Process

Nonfederal parties’ concerns depended largely on their expectations of the 

consultation process. Nonfederal parties intent on carrying out an activity 

were concerned primarily about the cost and time required for the process, 

although in some cases factors other than consultation added to the cost or 

time. Environmental advocates, in contrast, were concerned mainly about 

whether the process effectively protects species. In addition, both 

applicants and environmental advocates were concerned that the process 

was not sufficiently transparent.

Applicants Were Primarily 

Concerned about Cost and 

Time 

Applicants are individuals, companies, or other organizations that receive 

federal authorization or funds to conduct certain activities, and the effects 

of these activities on protected species must be considered to determine if 

consultation is necessary. We interviewed 40 applicants including 

individual landowners, companies, and industry groups who had been 

through the consultation process for activities such as private dock 

construction or repair, timber harvesting, and oil and gas or mineral 

development. Most of these 40 applicants expressed concern about the 

cost that the consultation process added to their activities. For example, 

more than half of these applicants hired consultants to prepare the 

biological assessment for consultation on their activity because, in some 

cases, the action agencies’ workload was too great to prepare an 

assessment in a timely manner for them. Typically, hiring such consultants 

added thousands of dollars to the applicants’ costs. Now that consultation 

is conducted as a part of the permitting process, permitting costs have 

increased to about 33 percent of construction costs for a typical dock, 

according to a homeowner’s representative in Washington. In contrast, 

before the additional species listings in the late 1990s, the permitting 

process for such activities averaged about 5 percent of construction costs. 

Most applicants also incurred costs associated with modifications to their 

proposed activities during consultation—modifications which they viewed 

as costly or unnecessary. For example, a timber company representative in 

Idaho said that a consultation between FWS and the Forest Service for a 

timber sale resulted in unnecessary costs after a bald eagle’s nest (the bald 

eagle is a threatened species under the ESA) was discovered in the area of 

the sale while the company was preparing for harvest. FWS and Forest 

Service determined that the timber contained in a 1-mile buffer zone 

around the nest should not be harvested in order to protect the eagle. 

However, according to the company representative, forgoing that zone 

would have largely devalued the sale because it included nearly all of the 
Page 55 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

high-value timber. After learning about the federal agencies’ decision, the 

company paid over $6,000 to an outside consultant to review it; the 

consultant prepared a biological assessment that identified deficiencies in 

the federal agencies’ scientific reasoning behind the decision. Ultimately, 

FWS and the Forest Service excluded a smaller area of timber, causing the 

company to forgo a much smaller share of the high-value timber—about 22 

percent—from the original sale. However, by the time this decision had 

been reached, the market value of the high-value timber had dropped 

substantially.

Most applicants were also concerned about the additional time needed to 

carry out their activities as a result of the consultation process. For 

example, an applicant for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to 

construct a marina in Washington waited more than 180 days for NMFS to 

issue its biological opinion—about 45 days longer than the 135 allowed 

once formal consultation is initiated. Beforehand, the applicant had already 

spent about 125 days in preconsultation, which included multiple requests 

from NMFS, spaced weeks or months apart, for additional project 

information that sometimes duplicated information he had already 

provided or that appeared unnecessary for initiating consultation. 

According to the applicant, the lengthy consultation risked delaying the 

construction for a year because of the limited time window for in-water 

work, which must be planned around fish presence and cannot take place 

during severe weather. NMFS officials recognized that final reviews of the 

draft biological opinion both at NMFS and the Corps took longer than 

usual, in part, because NMFS was working to standardize the quality of its 

biological opinions issued by various field offices. NMFS officials 

maintained, however, that all of the information requested was necessary 

for consultation and speculated that some information may have 

duplicated what was sent to state or local permitting agencies to which 

NMFS was not privy. 

As another example, the average time for the Corps to process 19 permits 

issued in 2002 for building private docks or similar activities on Lake 

Washington (near Seattle) was about 2 years. This time included the 

consultation time spent by the Services, as well as the time spent by the 

action agency to help the permit applicant complete a biological 

assessment for the consultation and meet other Corps requirements for the 

permit. Officials from both Services noted that the prolonged permitting 

process was due, in part, to the consultation workload generated after the 

late 1990s salmon and bull trout listings, as well as FWS’ initial 

unfamiliarity with the effects of activities on the bull trout—the only 
Page 56 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

aquatic species FWS manages in Washington. According to a Lake 

Washington homeowners’ representative, before the additional species 

listings in the late 1990s, the permitting process for such activities generally 

took only 2 or 3 months. 

Concerns about time and expense that an applicant attributed to the 

consultation process may sometimes stem from other factors about which 

the applicant may have been unaware. For example, an applicant seeking 

road access through a national forest to his private timberland, which he 

planned to partially harvest, waited 3 years for federal approval. According 

to the landowner, the timber on his land was devalued by as much as onethird while the permitting process ran its course. He attributed this wait 

and cost to consultation. Though the permitting process included 

consultation, the Forest Service biologist involved in the permit said that 

efforts to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, rather than 

consultation, protracted the permitting process. Similarly, Forest Service 

officials said that, in general, the National Environmental Policy Act is 

often the limiting factor in delayed fire projects. 

Some applicants found the consultation process to be confusing or unclear. 

According to officials at the Services, applicants—particularly, first-time 

applicants—often apply for permits “late,” when they are ready to proceed 

with a project that has not taken listed species into account. In some cases, 

applicants were unaware of consultation requirements or the time frames 

involved. For example, a representative from a local government in 

Oregon, overseeing her agency’s first project to restore fish habitat, first 

learned of the federal permitting and consultation requirements after 

receiving state approval for the project. She was concerned about the time 

needed for permitting and consultation because her agency faced pressure 

to finish the project before the funding expired and the seasonal work 

period ended. In this case, the project was completed on time because 

NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked hard to complete the 

permitting and consultation within her time constraints. 

Environmental Advocates 

Were Concerned about 

Whether the Process 

Protects Species

Environmental advocates that we contacted were primarily concerned that 

the consultation process, as implemented, does not go far enough to 

protect listed species. According to these advocates, consultations may not 

adequately protect species, in part, because of weak oversight by the 

Services. Advocates said that the Services provide weaker oversight than in 

the past over proposed actions undergoing consultation for reasons such as 

understaffing, pressure to speed up the consultation process, the Services’ 
Page 57 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

focus on collaboration with the action agencies, and political pressure to 

avoid jeopardy biological opinions. Advocates were also concerned about 

new regulations that could further reduce oversight. These regulations 

allow action agencies to self-certify certain activities related to wildfire 

prevention without consulting with the Services, if certain procedures that 

involve the Services are followed. 

Advocates also suggested that the Services may not be adequately 

protecting species because of a limited understanding of species’ 

conditions. One environmental advocate said that these limitations impair 

the Services’ ability to predict the effects of proposed activities, including 

whether they could jeopardize species’ continued existence. FWS officials 

noted that their biological opinions include sections on the status of 

species in which they review the known information about a species and its 

biology. Two advocates said that one reason why the Services may not 

sufficiently understand species’ conditions is that action agencies 

sometimes incorrectly determine that an action will not affect listed 

species. Since consultation is not required when an action agency makes a 

“no effects” determination, the Services may never know that the activity 

occurred and cannot take it into account when reviewing the potential 

effects of other activities. One advocate expressed concern that the 

Services and action agencies would be in a poorer position to predict the 

effects of proposed activities under the new regulations that allow selfcertification because they might be unaware of activities permitted by 

other federal agencies using such certification. For example, one BLM 

district or national forest might not know the effects of other agencies’ 

activities elsewhere in a species’ range, and the combined effects of those 

activities could be harmful. 

All Nonfederal Parties 

Shared Concerns about 

Transparency

Applicants and environmental advocates expressed concern that the 

consultation process lacks transparency. The majority of the nonfederal 

parties wanted a greater role in the consultation process, including more 

timely information about the action agencies’ and the Services’ 

deliberations or an opportunity to provide input. For example, one official 

from a group representing irrigators in Idaho described his organization’s 

main role in consultations as “pounding on the door of [the Bureau of 

Reclamation],” on its constituents’ behalf, in order to receive timely 

updates on the agency’s deliberations with the Services and to provide 

input to the process. The representative noted that his constituents have a 

major financial stake in the outcome of consultations on the bureau’s water 

storage and delivery infrastructure, which provides water for raising crops, 
Page 58 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

livestock, or other activities. Past consultations, for example, have 

obligated Reclamation to increase river flows to benefit listed fish species, 

which could affect the water available to his constituents. 

In addition, representatives from several environmental advocacy groups 

said that land management decision-making processes, such as 

consultations, are often closed to them until after final decisions are made, 

and that the only way they can make their voices heard is through 

administrative appeals and lawsuits. One environmental group’s 

representative said that outside parties need to resort to requests under the 

Freedom of Information Act in order to get information about 

consultations, and that this wastes resources. To help alleviate this, he 

suggested that the public receive notification when consultation is taking 

place and be allowed to submit written comments. Officials at the Services 

pointed out that the Endangered Species Act does not provide for public 

involvement in the consultation process as it does for many other 

components of the act. Under Endangered Species Act regulations, certain 

procedural opportunities—such as the opportunity to submit information 

during the consultation and to review and comment on the draft biological 

opinion—are provided only for an applicant seeking federal approval for an 

activity.

Conclusions The consultation process and many other aspects of the Endangered 

Species Act remain contentious and controversial after 30 years, and the 

situation shows no signs of changing. Efforts by the Services and action 

agencies to improve the process have had some clear benefits—improving 

interagency relationships and information dissemination about the 

process, and reducing workload in some cases. Still, frustration and 

confusion continue. Action agencies believe the Services sometimes go 

beyond what the act calls for, while the Services argue that they are simply 

fulfilling their legal obligations to protect species within the constraints of 

limited resources. Both the Services and action agencies recognize that 

fear of litigation is affecting the process. Clearly, there is no boilerplate 

approach to handling consultations. The nature of different species’ 

biologies, dynamic ecosystems, and the multitude of activities performed 

and their various levels of effects, makes the consultation process a 

difficult task that is dependent on understanding specific conditions and 

exercising a healthy dose of best professional judgment. Hence, even with a 

perfect process, there will always be disagreements. 
Page 59 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

However, we believe that given the importance of the consultation process 

on species’ protection and federal and nonfederal activities, the Services 

and action agencies should do more to air persistent disagreements, 

discuss their respective positions openly, and identify additional steps that 

are needed to enhance a consistent understanding of what is required 

under the act. Improved information on the consultation process itself, 

including the level of effort devoted to preconsultation, is an important part 

of this effort as there are continual complaints about the lengthiness of and 

burden posed by the process. In addition, given constant concerns about 

the sufficiency of resources, it is imperative that the Services and action 

agencies take steps to ensure that they are using resources effectively, 

particularly by gathering more complete and reliable information about the 

level of effort devoted to the process and evaluating the efficacy of steps 

taken to improve the process.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We are making four recommendations to improve implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act consultation process.

• We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior and the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere direct the Directors 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service to work together with the action agencies we reviewed (and 

others the Services may deem appropriate) to determine how best to 

capture the level of effort devoted to preconsultation in their data 

systems and ensure that such information is gathered, maintained, and 

used to manage the process effectively. 

• We further recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Defense, 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the 

Chief of the Forest Service, work together to

• resolve disagreements about when consultation is needed and how 

detailed an analysis is necessary given a proposed activity’s likely 

effects on species or habitat, and ensure that their agreements are 

disseminated quickly to all staff involved in consultations as well as 

to the public;

• refine guidance, as needed, on the type and specificity of 

documentation required in consultations; and 
Page 60 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

• evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of efforts to improve the 

consultation process, such as programmatic consultations and 

streamlining, and use the evaluation results as a basis for future 

management actions.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of the Interior 

and Defense, NOAA, and the Forest Service. The Departments of the 

Interior and the Army, NOAA, and the Forest Service provided official 

written comments. (See appendixes II through V, respectively, for the full 

text of the comments received from these agencies and our responses.) 

The departments, NOAA, and the Forest Service generally concurred with 

our findings. The Army commented that the report did a good job of 

identifying the multiple problems that contribute to delays and often to 

increased costs at U.S. Army Corps civil works and regulatory projects as 

preconsultation and informal and formal consultation proceed. The Forest 

Service commented that the report accurately describes many of the topics 

associated with interagency cooperation under the consultation process—

with both the process itself and with agency use and implementation of it. 

The Department of the Interior, NOAA, and the Forest Service commented 

that the report should better reflect the benefits of preconsultation and 

consultation. We agree and have incorporated additional information on 

these issues in the report. 

Concerning our recommendations, the departments, NOAA, and the Forest 

Service concurred with our recommendation to capture the level of effort 

devoted to preconsultation, although the Forest Service, NOAA, and the 

Department of the Interior noted concerns about finding an adequate but 

not overly burdensome process to do so. We discussed this difficulty in our 

draft report and recognize that the data management solution might not 

involve a precise tracking of individual official’s time spent on specific 

consultations but instead might consist of higher-level indicators of the 

effort devoted to a consultation. Our recommendation is intended to 

provide the agencies with flexibility in finding an acceptable solution. The 

Army suggested that we clarify and strengthen this recommendation to 

ensure that the Services and the action agencies we reviewed are equal 

partners in efforts to improve data management related to preconsultation. 

We have modified this recommendation to ensure that our intent that all 

agencies be involved in identifying a data management solution is clear. 
Page 61 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

The Departments of the Army and the Interior and NOAA agreed with our 

second recommendation, which directs the departments, NOAA, and the 

Forest Service to work together to resolve disagreements about when 

consultation is needed and how detailed an analysis is sufficient, but the 

Forest Service did not. The Forest Service commented that this 

recommendation was unnecessary because regulations set forth the 

requirements for consultation. We are retaining the recommendation 

because, while the criteria for consultation are provided in the regulations, 

the disagreements we found during our audit work indicate that 

clarification beyond these regulations is necessary. While the Army agreed 

with this recommendation, it suggested that the recommendation should 

be more specific as to how to resolve disagreements. We have not modified 

this recommendation because we do not want to prescribe “interagency 

procedures,” as suggested by the Army; we believe the departments, NOAA, 

and the Forest Service should have flexibility in determining what method 

is most effective, including proposing regulatory or legislative changes if 

needed. 

All the agencies agreed with our recommendations to refine guidance and 

to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of improvements made to the 

consultation process. The Department of the Interior, NOAA, and the 

Forest Service also provided other comments and technical clarifications 

on the draft report. We have made changes where appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 5 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Secretaries of Defense and the Interior, the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Chief of the Forest Service, and to 

other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon 
Page 62 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, 

please call me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VI.

Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Page 63 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

The Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator Baucus, asked 

us to (1) assess the federal data available on consultations completed in 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, including data on the number 

completed and their timeliness, for fiscal years 1998 through 2003; (2) 

identify steps taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and other federal agencies to improve the consultation 

process; and (3) discuss concerns of federal officials in the Services, 

officials with other federal agencies, and nonfederal parties about the 

process. As agreed with the Chairman, we limited our evaluation to four 

action agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Interior’s Bureau of 

Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation, and Agriculture’s Forest 

Service—for consultations conducted in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and 

Washington. To assess the data available on consultations, we obtained 

data on the number of Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) consultations with the four action agencies for 

fiscal years 2001 through 2003. These data are being used primarily to 

provide context on consultations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and 

Washington.

We also requested data on consultation timeliness from NMFS regarding 

consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Interior’s Bureau of 

Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation, and Agriculture’s Forest 

Service in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington for fiscal years 1999 through 

2003. (NMFS had no consultations in Montana with any of the four action 

agencies included in our review.) Timeliness data on consultations for this 

entire period were not readily available from NMFS. According to officials 

knowledgeable about these data, NMFS did not maintain a central regional 

database for consultations data until January 2001. Timeliness data on 

consultations that occurred before that date could be obtained from 

individual field offices; however, these data would not be complete and 

would have to be supplemented with data from the administrative record, 

according to officials knowledgeable about the data. As such, we used only 

the data from the NMFS regional system for the 3-year fiscal period 2001 

through 2003.1

To assess the reliability of the timeliness data maintained by NMFS, we 

attempted to compare information contained in the administrative record 

1

The NMFS data, however, exclude the first quarter of fiscal year 2001 because the NMFS 

regional database was implemented in January 2001.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 64 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

with that in the database. We did so by asking biologists to discuss with us 

the administrative files for a few consultations they had conducted. 

However, most of the consultations chosen by the NMFS biologists were 

conducted in 1999 before the regional database was established. As such, 

we took further steps to ascertain the reliability of the timeliness data 

maintained in NMFS’s regional consultations database. We interviewed an 

official knowledgeable about this database to determine whether 

timeliness data in this system are reasonably complete and accurate. This 

official had reasonable confidence in the data elements we analyzed. We 

also performed data reliability tests on the timeliness elements of this 

database to find missing data, transposed dates, or duplicate records. We 

allowed NMFS officials the opportunity to correct data errors and insert 

missing data. We then calculated error rates for the databases we 

examined; the error rates for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 were 21, 19, 

and 10 percent, respectively. We determined that the timeliness data on 

consultations maintained in the NMFS regional consultations database 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, as long as the 

timeliness data are presented in the context of these error rates. NMFS 

officials said that these data should be sufficient to serve as indicators of 

the number and timeliness of consultations.

We also requested data on consultation timeliness from FWS regarding 

consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Interior’s Bureau of 

Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation, and Agriculture’s Forest 

Service in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington for fiscal years 1999 

through 2003. Such timeliness data on consultations were not readily 

available from FWS. During the time of our review, FWS did not maintain a 

central regional database for consultations data; each of the six field 

offices in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington had developed and 

maintained separate systems for storing consultation data. We interviewed 

officials knowledgeable about these databases and examined the 

associated data dictionary. During the time of our review, five of the six 

field offices in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington did not 

consistently record a key data point required to calculate timeliness: the 

date a consultation was initiated. They did record the date a consultation 

package was received in their office; however, according to a FWS official, 

the interval between those two dates can sometimes be significant. As 

such, the systems that did not record the date a consultation was initiated 

would yield timeliness data that consistently overestimated the time a 

consultation took to complete. Because these data were not reliable 

enough for our purposes, we did not use those systems for our analysis. 

The only system that did record the date a consultation was initiated was, 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 65 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

at the time of our review, the one maintained by the FWS office in Portland, 

Oregon.2

 Accordingly, we used this system to analyze timeliness for 

consultations conducted by that FWS office with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of 

Reclamation, and Agriculture’s Forest Service in Idaho, Oregon, and 

Washington (the vast majority of the Portland office’s consultations were in 

Oregon). From this system, we used data for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 

to ensure consistency with our analysis of NMFS data from the same 

period. 

To assess the reliability of the timeliness data in the FWS Portland, Oregon, 

office’s database, we similarly compared information contained in the 

administrative record with that contained in the database, to a limited 

extent. We examined consultation records selected by biologists and found 

that, in some instances, information in the administrative record was not in 

the database. Additionally, some information was neither in the 

administrative record nor in the database and had to be relayed to us by the 

biologist who worked on the consultation. We determined that the best 

information on a specific consultation was the administrative record, 

coupled with the recollections of the biologist who worked on the 

consultation. However, asking the FWS to provide us with copies of the 

administrative file for numerous records and access to each biologist who 

worked on those consultations seemed unduly burdensome. Accordingly, 

we took further steps to ascertain the accuracy and completeness of the 

timeliness data on consultations maintained in the Portland office’s 

database. We interviewed an official knowledgeable about this database to 

determine whether the timeliness data in this system are reasonably 

complete and accurate. This official had reasonable confidence in the data 

elements we analyzed. We also performed data reliability tests on the 

timeliness elements of this database to find missing data, transposed dates, 

or duplicate records. We allowed FWS officials the opportunity to correct 

data errors and insert missing data. We then calculated error rates for the 

databases we examined; the error rates for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 

were 0, 6, and 14 percent, respectively. We determined that the timeliness 

data on consultations maintained in the FWS Portland field office 

consultation database were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

2

In March 2003, FWS implemented a three-state database for Idaho, Oregon, and 

Washington, but we did not use it because it contained data for only the second half of fiscal 

year 2003.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 66 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

report, as long as the timeliness data are presented in the context of these 

error rates. 

To identify improvements to and concerns about the consultation process 

in the four states, we interviewed officials of both Services and the four 

action agencies: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service. We 

administered—via telephone or in person—a comprehensive survey to a 

nonprobability sample of 66 officials of the Services and the four action 

agencies.3

 The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may 

introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling 

errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, 

the sources of information available to respondents, or the types of people 

who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey 

results. We included steps in both the data collection and data analysis 

stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors. We pretested this survey and, based on the results and comments received during 

pre-testing, made appropriate revisions. To help ensure that questions 

raised by the respondents were addressed similarly by each interviewer 

(i.e., to address inter-rater reliability), we included all of the primary 

interviewers in the pre-tests, and often more than one interviewer 

participated in administering the surveys. 

To ensure appropriate survey coverage, we selected a variety of Service 

and agency field offices to survey based on geographic location, workload, 

and collocation with other offices. At these locations we obtained the 

opinions of officials representing different points of view within the 

consultation process, including fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists, 

program managers, and office managers. These officials included Service 

biologists responsible for working with the four action agencies, and action 

agency biologists responsible for conducting consultations in these 

locations, including action agency officials responsible for the agencies' 

various primary programs--including recreation, timber, and other 

programs. In cases where numerous potential interviewees met our 

selection criteria, we selected among them randomly. The sample of agency 

officials interviewed was not intended to be representative of all the 

3

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 

population. This is because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population 

being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 67 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

officials involved in the consultation process in the four states. In total, we 

surveyed 40 biologists and 26 program officials. 

Through our survey we gathered officials’ perceptions about consultations, 

based on their experience with them since the late 1990s. The survey 

included questions about what works well in the consultation process, 

whether the process has improved or worsened since the late 1990s, what 

concerns people have about the process, and what improvements, if any, 

have been made to the process. To identify very important concerns, we 

asked respondents to identify, from a list of concerns, any that they 

considered to be “very important,” as well as their other concerns that did 

not appear in the list.

In addition, we conducted open-ended interviews with 143 officials, whom 

we selected because of their geographic locations or their roles in 

consultation. We interviewed officials from the following locations: 

• FWS’ headquarters in Washington, D.C.; regional office in Portland, 

Oregon; California-Nevada operations office in Sacramento, California; 

and field offices in Boise and Chubbock, Idaho; Helena, Montana; 

Klamath Falls and Portland, Oregon; and Lacey, Spokane, and 

Wenatchee, Washington; 

• NMFS’ headquarters in Washington, D.C.; representatives from the 

Northwest Regional office in Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon; 

and field offices in Boise and Salmon, Idaho; and Ellensburg and Lacey, 

Washington; 

• the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Northwest Division office in 

Portland, Oregon; regulatory office in Helena, Montana; and district 

offices in Portland, Oregon; and Seattle and Walla Walla, Washington;

• the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.; 

area office in Billings, Montana; and field offices in Boise, Challis, Coeur 

D’Alene, Cottonwood, Pocatello, and Salmon, Idaho; Billings and 

Missoula, Montana; Coos Bay, and Klamath Falls, Oregon; and Spokane 

and Wenatchee, Washington;

• the Bureau of Reclamation’s headquarters in Lakewood, Colorado; 

Office of Policy in Washington, D.C.; Pacific Northwest regional office in 

Boise, Idaho; Montana area office in Billings, Montana (Great Plains 

region); and Lower Columbia area office in Portland, Oregon; and
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 68 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

• the Forest Service’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.; regional offices 

in Missoula, Montana, and Portland, Oregon; the ranger district in 

Leavenworth, Washington; district offices in Lost River and Challis, 

Idaho; the Salmon-Challis National Forest, in Salmon, Idaho; the 

Gallatin National Forest in Bozeman, Montana; the Lolo National Forest 

in Missoula, Montana; the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests in 

Medford, Oregon; the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Vancouver, 

Washington; and the Olympic National Forest in Olympia, Washington.

We also interviewed 44 nonfederal parties, including applicants—

nonfederal parties seeking federal authorization or funds to conduct an 

activity subject to consultation—and representatives of environmental 

advocacy groups. We identified these interviewees either through a referral 

from a Service or action agency official or through our knowledge of their 

involvement and interest in consultations. The nonfederal interviewees 

included representatives of 

• port authorities;

• local governments;

• irrigation districts;

• private industry, including logging, ranching, and oil and gas 

exploration;

• environmental groups; and

• homeowners. 

From these parties we solicited information on improvements made to the 

consultation process, concerns about the process, and suggestions for 

further improvement.

We performed our work from November 2002 through December 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 69 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 70 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 71 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 4.

See comment 5.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 72 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 73 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 74 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 6.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 75 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 7.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 76 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 8.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 77 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 78 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 9.

See comment 10.

See comment 11.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 79 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 80 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 12.

See comment 13.

See comment 14.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 81 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 82 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s 

letter dated February 27, 2004.

GAO Comments We modified the report as appropriate based on the technical comments 

that the Department of the Interior provided us. In addition, detailed 

responses to some of Interior’s other comments are provided below.

1. We identified the need to correct some of the data we presented in the 

draft report during the agency comment period and informed FWS of 

this; we have made the appropriate changes to the report. 

2. We agree and have incorporated additional information on the benefits 

of the consultation process in the report. 

3. We agree that there may be good reasons for some consultations not to 

be completed within established time frames. We recognized in our 

draft report that some consultations we identified as exceeding time 

frames may have had agreed-upon extensions, and we have 

incorporated additional information to provide some of the reasons for 

such extensions. 

4. The draft report does not assert that preconsultation is or should be 

considered a part of the statutory consultation. We are recommending 

that the Department of the Interior and NOAA work with relevant 

action agencies to improve tracking of the level of effort spent in 

preconsultation because, as many of our interviews with agency 

officials and some of the agency comments received on the draft report 

indicate, the time spent in preconsultation is an important component 

of the consultation process and may reduce the length of time spent in 

formal and informal consultation (which the Services consider to have 

begun once they receive a complete biological assessment or similar 

document). We recognized in the draft report that preconsultation may 

include periods of time when neither the Services nor the action 

agencies are working on a proposed project and that, in some cases, 

information developed during this period may be used to support other 

environmental requirements and therefore cannot be attributed solely 

to the consultation process. 

5. We agree that the effectiveness of the consultation process for species 

conservation is very important and discuss, in several places in the 

report, indicators and officials’ opinions of its effectiveness; we also 
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 83 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

recommend that the departments, NOAA, and the Forest Service 

evaluate the effectiveness of any improvements made to the process. 

Officials with the Services told us that they believe that the low number 

of jeopardy opinions indicates that the process is effectively ensuring 

that federal activities are not jeopardizing listed species. In addition, 

officials with the Services and action agencies told us that the 

consultation process, especially time spent in preconsultation, has 

resulted in better projects that have fewer impacts on species or are 

influenced by the consultation process early enough so that any needed 

project modifications cost less than if done later in project 

development and have minimal or no impact on project implementation 

schedules. However, as later noted in the Department of the Interior’s 

comments, there are few data available to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the consultation process overall. While we discussed Endangered 

Species Act section 7(a)(1) responsibilities with some officials, we did 

not evaluate whether agencies were using their authorities to carry out 

programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species, 

as directed by this section of the act (such programs are in addition to 

the section 7(a)(2) requirement for federal agencies to consult on 

activities that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat). 

We are, therefore, not making a recommendation about the use of 

section 7(a)(1). 

6. We agree and have incorporated additional information about 

consultations completed early in the report. 

7. The point of whether section 7 of the act can be used to “leverage” 

species’ recovery would benefit from an official position from the 

Services. As we reported, some action agency officials are concerned 

that the Services are taking consultations too far by requesting that 

agencies implement what the officials perceive are actions intended to 

recover species, not just avoid jeopardy or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

8. The draft report recognized the difficulties of tracking the level of effort 

devoted to preconsultation. We are not prescribing a systems solution 

so that the departments, NOAA, and the Forest Service have flexibility 

in identifying a feasible option. Tracking level of effort does not 

necessarily mean precisely tracking the amount of time—down to the 

hour—spent on an individual consultation. One potential alternative is 

to have an information system from which biologists and agency staff 

could select various options to indicate whether they were spending a 
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 84 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

minimal amount of time on a consultation (with a definition of 

“minimal” provided such as less than 1 hour a week) or if their 

involvement was moderate or heavy. This information could then be 

used to track, in general terms, the level of effort devoted to proposed 

actions before formal or informal consultation is initiated; it could also 

be combined with the level of effort or time expended on the “official” 

consultation to determine the magnitude of the entire consultation 

process.

9. We believe the report does reflect interest and concerns from the 

Services and action agencies about the effectiveness of the 

consultation process. As we discussed in comment 5, some officials 

said that the consultation process is resulting in projects that have less 

effect on species and habitat. In addition, officials with the Services 

believe the process is working effectively to protect species because so 

few projects are found to jeopardize a listed species. Conversely, 

environmental advocates raised concerns about whether the process 

adequately protected species. However, as the Department of the 

Interior notes, there are few data available to comprehensively evaluate 

the effectiveness of the consultation process, although we recommend 

that the departments, NOAA, and the Forest Service evaluate the 

efficiency and effectiveness of any efforts to improve the process. 

10. We asked the action agencies included in our review for their data on 

the consultation process. While some action agencies maintained some 

data related to consultations, the data did not always track consultation 

as a discrete activity and, therefore, were not useful for the purposes of 

our evaluation. 

11. We recognize the distinction in the regulations regarding informal 

consultation, but in practice the Services do not consider informal 

consultation “initiated” until they receive a complete biological 

assessment or similar document. In our report, preconsultation is being 

used to describe all activities occurring before a formal or informal 

consultation is initiated by the Services. 

12. We agree that information on the causes of missed time frames would 

be useful information and is something for the departments, NOAA, and 

the Forest Service to consider in identifying data management options 

for tracking the entire consultation process. 
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 85 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

13. We believe training is included in our recommendations regarding 

clarifying disagreements and disseminating information quickly and 

refining guidance; how the departments, NOAA, and the Forest Service 

choose to disseminate such information and guidance could include 

providing additional training courses. In addition, several of the 

Services and action agencies reported that they were in the process of 

developing and/or refining consultation courses. 

14. We agree that providing transparency of federal actions is an important 

element for maintaining the confidence of the public. However, as we 

discuss in the report, the Endangered Species Act does not provide for 

public involvement in the consultations process as it does for many 

other components of the act. Making draft biological opinions available 

to the public may be something that the departments, NOAA, and the 

Forest Service may want to consider studying. 
Page 86 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the Army ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 87 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 88 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 89 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 90 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 91 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Army’s letter 

dated February 19, 2004.

GAO Comment The Army generally concurred with our recommendations but suggested 

that we clarify and strengthen them. See our response to their suggestions 

in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section in this report. 
Page 92 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Appendix IV

Comments from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration ApendxiIV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix IV

Comments from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Page 93 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix IV

Comments from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Page 94 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix IV

Comments from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Page 95 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 3.
Appendix IV

Comments from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Page 96 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 4.
Appendix IV

Comments from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Page 97 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

The following are GAO’s comments on the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s letter dated February 26, 2004.

GAO Comments We modified the report as appropriate based on the technical comments 

that NOAA provided us. In addition, detailed responses to some of NOAA’s 

other comments are provided below.

1. We recognize that PCTS tracks preconsultation activities, but it does 

not track the level of effort devoted to preconsultation, which is the 

intent of our recommendation. However, PCTS may be a good starting 

point for identifying possible data management solutions. 

2. We recognize the potential benefits of preconsultation, and have 

incorporated additional information on these benefits in the report. 

3. We recognize the difficulties of determining federal discretion in some 

cases, and have incorporated information on this issue in the report. 

4. We recognize that many of the agencies have guidance and informationsharing mechanisms in place or under development. Given the 

disagreements that still exist about the process between the Services 

and action agencies, we intend our recommendation to ensure that the 

departments, NOAA, and the Forest Service coordinate these efforts to 

ensure consistency in interpretations and guidance provided, and, 

ideally, to maximize scarce resources by sharing and leveraging each 

others’ progress.
Page 98 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service ApendxiV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 99 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 100 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 101 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 7.

See comment 8.
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 102 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 103 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

See comment 9.
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 104 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 105 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

The following are GAO’s comments on the Forest Service’s letter dated 

February 27, 2004.

GAO Comments We modified the report based on the technical comments that the Forest 

Service provided us, as appropriate. In addition, discussed below are GAO’s 

corresponding detailed responses to some of Forest Service’s other 

comments.

1. As we noted in comment 2 in our response to the Department of the 

Interior, we agree and have incorporated additional information on the 

benefits of the consultation process in the report.

2. As we noted in comment 3 in our response to the Department of the 

Interior, we have incorporated additional information about the 

reasons for extensions to time frames for the consultation process. 

3. We agree that the timeliness of the entire consultation process will be 

affected by the adequacy of the information provided to the Services. 

However, given that the Services initiate formal or informal 

consultation only when they have a complete biological assessment or 

similar document, the additional time to provide adequate information 

would be considered a part of preconsultation and not subject to the 

established time frames for formal or informal consultations. 

4. As we noted in comment 4 in our response to the Department of the 

Interior, the report does not assert that preconsultation should be 

considered a part of the statutory consultation. 

5. As we noted in comment 2 in our response to NOAA, we have 

incorporated information on the value of preconsultation in the report.

6. As discussed in comment 5 in our response to the Department of the 

Interior, we agree that the effectiveness of the consultation process for 

species conservation is very important; however, we did not evaluate 

whether agencies were using their authorities to carry out programs for 

the conservation of threatened and endangered species, as directed by 

section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. 

7. As we noted in comment 8 in our response to the Department of the 

Interior, we recognize the difficulties of tracking the level of effort 
Appendix V

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 106 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

devoted to preconsultation and are providing the agencies flexibility in 

identifying a feasible option to do so. 

8. We believe the recommendation is still needed to resolve 

disagreements about when consultation is needed. Based on our survey 

and interviews, disagreements about when consultation is necessary 

was one of the more significant concerns identified. Hence, the 

Services and the action agencies should identify and resolve the most 

persistent disagreements in this regard and disseminate clarification 

quickly to avert further disagreements. If the Services and action 

agencies cannot resolve their differences, then Congressional direction 

may be necessary. The Services and action agencies should be 

addressing such disagreements continuously as they arise given the 

new and unique situations that constantly present themselves.

9. As we noted in comment 6 in our response to the Department of the 

Interior, we have incorporated additional information about 

consultations completed early in the report.
Page 107 GAO-04-93 Endangered Species Consultation Process

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Trish McClure (202) 512-6318

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Bob Crystal, Jennifer Duncan, 

Doreen Stolzenberg Feldman, Jaelith Hall-Rivera, Barbara Johnson, 

Cynthia Norris, Tony Padilla, Judy Pagano, Jeff Rueckhaus, and Pamela 

Tumler made key contributions to this report. 

(360259)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00