ENDANGERED SEA 

TURTLES

Better Coordination, 

Data Collection, and 

Planning Could 

Improve Federal 

Protection and 

Recovery Efforts

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2012

GAO-12-242

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-242, a report to 

congressional requesters

January 2012

ENDANGERED SEA TURTLES

Better Coordination, Data Collection, and Planning 

Could Improve Federal Protection and Recovery 

Efforts

Why GAO Did This Study

All six species of sea turtles found in 

U.S. waters and nesting on U.S. 

shores are listed as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act. Two 

federal agencies—the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS)—are 

charged with protecting sea turtles, 

NMFS when the turtles are at sea and 

FWS on land. The act prohibits the 

“take,” including harassment or killing, 

of protected species. The services

(NMFS and FWS) can, however,

authorize take under certain 

circumstances. The act also requires 

recovery plans for each listed species, 

which set forth broad goals and 

recovery strategies. GAO was asked to 

determine the extent to which the 

services (1) coordinate their sea turtle 

protection activities, (2) collect and 

analyze take data, (3) clearly explain 

how they determine if a proposed 

action will jeopardize sea turtles, and 

(4) have developed operational plans 

to help realize recovery goals. To 

address these issues, GAO reviewed 

documents and interviewed officials 

from both services and experts, 

including state agency officials, 

university researchers, and 

representatives of environmental and 

industry groups. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations 

to the Secretaries of Commerce and 

the Interior to improve the services’

sea turtle coordination, data collection, 

reporting, and planning efforts. Both 

NMFS and FWS generally agreed with 

the recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The services have coordinated some sea turtle protection efforts, including jointly

developing recovery plans, and they established a memorandum of 

understanding in 1977 to define their roles in joint administration of their efforts. 

Nevertheless, neither the memorandum nor the services have clearly defined 

how and when the services are to coordinate; also, the services do not 

consistently share information about the majority of the take they authorize. 

According to sea turtle experts GAO spoke with, each service may therefore be 

authorizing sea turtle take without knowing how much its counterpart has 

authorized, and the combined allowance may be harming threatened and

endangered sea turtles and delaying their recovery. 

NMFS and FWS each use databases that collect information about consultations 

involving take of sea turtles and other species, but they do not use these 

databases to comprehensively collect and analyze sea turtle take data. 

Specifically, not all of the databases require entry of data on anticipated and

actual take. The services also maintain separate documents that collect 

information about anticipated take, but these documents are not structured to 

easily allow analysis of total anticipated take and do not track actual take.

According to some experts and NMFS officials GAO spoke with, total take should 

be considered when the services determine whether proposed actions are likely 

to jeopardize species or approve additional take authorizations.

Biological opinions prepared by NMFS and FWS do not clearly explain how the 

services determine that an action anticipated to result in the take of sea turtles 

will not jeopardize their continued existence. Guidance developed by the services 

states that the opinions should be written so the general public can trace the path 

of logic to the conclusion. But some experts GAO spoke with said, and GAO’s

review of selected biological opinions found, that the opinions may not clearly 

describe why the services conclude that a particular action, such as commercial 

fishing anticipated to harm turtles, will not jeopardize the species’ existence. If 

the analyses and decisions in the opinions are not clear, neither Congress nor 

the public can be assured that the services are adequately protecting vulnerable 

sea turtle populations as required by the Endangered Species Act. 

Neither NMFS nor FWS has developed its own service-specific operational plans 

describing the actions it will perform to achieve the goals in their jointly prepared

sea turtle recovery plans. In the absence of service-specific plans, the services 

rely on the jointly developed recovery plans to guide their sea turtle protection 

and recovery efforts. But GAO’s review of these recovery plans found that they 

do not include key elements of effective planning, such as performance 

measures to gauge progress toward goals. Without service-specific plans and 

performance measures, neither service can ensure that it is taking the steps 

needed to realize sea turtle recovery goals.

View GAO-12-242. For more information, 

contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or 

mittala@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Letter 1 

Background 4

NMFS and FWS Coordinate on Some but Not All Take Decisions 8

Neither Service Uses Its Section 7 and Section 10 Databases to 

Comprehensively Collect and Analyze Data on Anticipated or 

Actual Take 13

NMFS’s and FWS’s Biological Opinions Do Not Clearly Explain 

Rationales for Determining Whether an Action Will Jeopardize 

Sea Turtles 18

Neither NMFS nor FWS Has Developed Its Own Operational Plan 

on How to Achieve the Goals Established in Sea Turtle Recovery 

Plans 21

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 33

Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior 38

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Abbreviations

FWS 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. The published product 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-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 31, 2012

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Sam Farr

House of Representatives

Sea turtles—ancient, highly migratory reptiles—today number worldwide 

just a small percentage of their populations from a century ago. Although

six species are still found in the waters or on the beaches of the United 

States, all six—green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, 

and olive ridley—are listed as endangered in all or part of their range1

under the Endangered Species Act.2

Sea turtles inhabit both ocean and land environments, and two federal 

agencies are charged with protecting them under the act. Sea turtles 

spend most of their lives in the open ocean, but female sea turtles must 

return to land to lay their eggs. Sea turtles are vulnerable to a number of 

threats, both at sea and on land. Some of these threats are the result of 

human-caused actions, including unintentional injury or death due to 

These sea turtle species have been 

protected under the act since the 1970s, but no species has recovered to 

an extent that would allow its removal from the list of protected species or 

a change in its status from endangered to threatened.

 

1

Range refers to the geographic area a species is known or believed to occupy.

2

16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (2006). Under the Endangered Species Act, “endangered 

species” is defined, generally, as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range,” and “threatened species” is defined as “any 

species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6), (20) (2006). 

Certain populations of green, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles are listed separately as 

threatened. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

(1) fishing in state, federal, and international waters;

3 (2) environmental 

contamination from events such as oil spills; or (3) loss or degradation of 

nesting habitat through beachfront development. Two federal agencies—

the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), and the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS)—share the responsibility for managing the conservation and 

recovery of sea turtles.

4 NMFS is specifically responsible for managing 

sea turtle populations in the marine environment, and FWS is specifically 

responsible for managing them on land.5

The Endangered Species Act provides direction for conserving 

threatened and endangered species, including sea turtles. Specifically, 

section 9 of the act generally prohibits the “take” of endangered species. 

The act defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

Each service has multiple 

regional or field offices that carry out sea turtle protection in particular

geographic areas.

6

Under section 7 of the act, federal agencies must ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is unlikely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat.7

 

3

State waters generally extend from the shore to 3 nautical miles offshore. Federal waters, 

which are waters under the jurisdiction of the federal government, generally extend from 3 

nautical miles to 200 nautical miles offshore. Waters beyond 200 nautical miles offshore 

are considered international waters.

To fulfill this responsibility, federal agencies must consult with 

the services when their actions may affect listed species or critical habitat. 

Formal consultations generally result in the issuance by the applicable 

service of reports known as “biological opinions,” which discuss in detail 

the effects of proposed actions on listed species and their critical habitat, 

4

Throughout this report, we refer to NMFS and FWS as “the services."

5

Authority for sea turtle management has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce 

to NMFS’s Assistant Administrator for Fisheries and by the Secretary of the Interior to the 

Director of FWS. Throughout this report, we refer to requirements on the Secretaries as 

requirements on the services.

6

16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (2006).

7

Throughout this report, the term “listed species” includes not only the species itself but 

also its critical habitat, if critical habitat has been designated under the Endangered 

Species Act.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

as well as that service’s opinion on whether a proposed action is likely to 

jeopardize a species’ continued existence or destroy or adversely modify 

its critical habitat. The opinion also determines the quantity or extent of 

anticipated “incidental take”—that is, take that is not intentional but occurs 

nonetheless as a result of carrying out an agency action. The act 

generally requires development of “recovery plans” for each listed 

species, which set forth goals, criteria, and actions to guide the services’ 

recovery efforts. The act also requires certain entities, such as scientists 

engaged in research on listed species or landowners engaged in activity 

likely to cause the incidental take of a listed species, to obtain a permit 

from the appropriate service.

You asked us to investigate the degree of coordination between NMFS 

and FWS related to sea turtle protection and take determinations. 

Accordingly, this report examines the extent to which the two services 

(1) coordinate their sea turtle protection activities, (2) collect and analyze 

data on anticipated and actual sea turtle take, (3) clearly explain in their

biological opinions the rationales they use when determining whether a 

proposed action will jeopardize sea turtles, and (4) have developed 

operational plans to help realize the goals of recovery plans for sea turtle

species. 

We addressed these objectives by taking a variety of steps. Specifically, 

we reviewed the memorandum of understanding between NMFS and 

FWS regarding their sea turtle protection activities. We also reviewed the 

information contained in four databases the services use to collect 

information on anticipated and actual take of sea turtles. We reviewed all 

22 of the biological opinions issued from January 1, 2006, to January 1, 

2011, by NMFS for federal fisheries and a random sample consisting of 

21 of the 119 biological opinions issued by FWS for the same time period 

that included actions anticipated to result in the take of sea turtles.8

 

8

The term “fishery” means one or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit for 

purposes of conservation and management and that are identified on the basis of 

geographic, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic characteristics. We use the 

term “federal fishery” to mean a fishery managed by the regional fishery management 

councils and NMFS. The councils are composed of federal and state fishery management 

officials, as well as active fishery participants, among others, and are responsible for 

developing management plans for fisheries in federal waters.

Additionally, we reviewed all of the sea turtle recovery plans and other

related plans developed by the services. To gain a national perspective 

on sea turtle protection efforts, we interviewed NMFS’s and FWS’s 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

national sea turtle coordinators and officials with national sea turtle 

protection responsibilities. We also interviewed a range of experts and 

other individuals—including university researchers; representatives of 

nongovernmental organizations, such as Oceana; and representatives 

from regional fishery management councils—whom we identified as 

knowledgeable about national sea turtle protection efforts. To examine 

the services’ sea turtle protection efforts in greater depth, and to better 

understand any regional differences, we gathered information for four 

states: Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Texas. We selected these 

states primarily because of their sea turtle nesting populations, federally 

managed fisheries offshore, and a relatively high level of anticipated take 

associated with these fishing operations. For these four states, we 

analyzed documentation and interviewed a diverse range of individuals 

involved in sea turtle protection, including the services’ regional and field 

office officials; other federal and state agency officials; and experts from 

industry, such as the Southern Shrimp Alliance, and from environmental 

groups, such as the Sea Turtle Conservancy. Appendix I discusses our 

scope and methodology in more detail.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to January 

2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened 

and endangered species, including sea turtles, and the ecosystems on 

which they depend. The act provides for listing species that need 

protection; designating habitat deemed critical to a listed species’

conservation; protecting listed species against certain harms caused by 

federal and nonfederal actions; conducting 5-year reviews on species’ 

status; and developing recovery plans that contain objective, measurable 

criteria that, when met, would result in a determination that the species 

can be removed from the list.

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Among provisions in the act, section 9 generally prohibits the take of 

listed endangered animal species.9

• Section 10, among other things, provides an avenue for entities to 

obtain permits for activities that may result in the take of listed 

species: 

The act, however, also provides for 

key exceptions to section 9’s take prohibition. Specifically:

• Under section 10(a)(1)(A), the services can issue permits for take 

resulting from scientific research or actions to enhance the 

propagation or survival of a listed species.

• Under section 10(a)(1)(B), the services can issue “incidental take 

permits” for incidental take by nonfederal entities, such as take 

anticipated from states’ permitting construction on a beach.

• Section 7 directs federal agencies to consult with the services when 

these agencies determine that an action they authorize, fund, or carry 

out could affect listed species.10 Formal consultation is required 

unless the action agency finds, with either NMFS’s or FWS’s written 

concurrence, that a proposed action is not likely to adversely affect 

the species. To initiate a formal consultation, an action agency 

submits to the appropriate service a written request describing the 

proposed action and its likely effects on the listed species and its 

habitat. The consultation usually ends with NMFS or FWS issuing a 

biological opinion. 

 

9

Section 4(d) of the act authorizes the services to extend the prohibition against take to 

threatened species. Both services have done so with respect to threatened sea turtle 

species.

10Section 7 also applies to the services’ own activities, including issuing section 10 

permits to nonfederal parties; in such cases, the service conducts an “intraservice” 

consultation. 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Both take permits and take statements describe the take that has been 

authorized and specify the conditions under which it may occur.11

The services’ biological opinions, which are to be based on “the best 

scientific and commercial data available,” constitute the services’ 

determinations as to whether the effects of an action, when viewed 

against a species’ status, are likely to jeopardize that species’ continued 

existence. In their biological opinions, the services are to evaluate, among 

other things, a species’ current status, its “environmental baseline,”

Take is 

generally expressed as the number of individuals of a species killed or 

injured, except in circumstances where this number would be difficult to 

determine or monitor. In these instances, a substitute measure of the 

species resource loss is used, such as the miles of beach expected to be 

affected. In addition, a section 7 take statement specifies “reasonable and 

prudent measures,” that is, steps that may minimize the impact to the 

species of any take anticipated to occur. An incidental take permit is 

conditioned upon an applicant’s submission of a habitat conservation plan 

that specifies steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate 

anticipated take. For example, an action may be restricted to a time of 

year when the species is not present, buffer zones might be required 

around known nesting areas, or species might have to be trapped and 

moved elsewhere before an action can proceed. A habitat conservation 

plan is not required to obtain a scientific research permit, but the services’ 

regulations subject such permits to various conditions as well. 

12

 

11Through permits issued under section 10, the services formally authorize the taking of 

listed species. Under section 7, however, the services do not formally authorize the taking 

of listed species by federal agencies; rather, they consult with federal entities on their 

proposed actions. While federal agencies are shielded from the act’s take prohibition if 

they comply with the conditions set out in an incidental take statement, they do not need 

the services’ permission to proceed with an action. Nevertheless, because an incidental 

take statement has the same practical effect as a take authorization associated with 

section 10 permits—that is, an incidental take statement effectively authorizes incidental 

take—for simplicity, we refer generally to “authorized take” or “anticipated take” when 

discussing take in the context of both sections 7 and 10.

and 

the effects on the species of the action, including the quantity or extent of

incidental take that service biologists anticipate will result from the action. 

Actual take occurring as a result of an action could be higher or lower 

12To determine the environmental baseline, the services analyze the effects of past and 

present human and natural factors leading to a species’ current status, its habitat, and

ecosystem within the action area. The environmental baseline includes the impacts of all 

federal, state, or private actions—including the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal 

actions in the area—that have already undergone separate consultation with the services. 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

than the anticipated estimate. Biological opinions also contain provisions 

directing the action agency to monitor the action’s effects on listed 

species and to reenter into, or reinitiate, consultation if the quantity or 

extent of anticipated take is exceeded.

In addition, section 4 of the Endangered Species Act requires the 

services to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation 

and survival of threatened and endangered species, unless the services 

determine that a plan will not promote their conservation. The act directs 

the services, to the maximum extent practicable, to incorporate in each 

recovery plan (1) a description of site-specific management actions 

necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of 

the species; (2) objective, measurable criteria that will result in a 

determination that the species can be removed from the list of threatened 

and endangered species; and (3) estimates of the time and cost required 

to carry out those actions needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to 

achieve intermediate steps toward the goal. Recovery teams, which may 

include independent scientists and experts, can be formed to advise and 

assist the services in developing and implementing recovery plans. 

Section 4 of the act also requires the services to review the status of each 

listed species at least once every 5 years to determine whether any 

species should be removed from the list, changed from endangered to 

threatened, or changed from threatened to endangered.

NMFS and FWS have divided their responsibilities for sea turtle 

protection among their respective staff located in headquarters and 

regional and field offices. Both services have established national sea

turtle coordinators to oversee each service’s activities, with NMFS’s 

national coordinator located in headquarters in the Washington, D.C., 

area and FWS’s national coordinator located in its Jacksonville, Florida, 

field office. Both services’ headquarters also have staff responsible for 

implementing various aspects of the Endangered Species Act, although 

these staff may have other responsibilities in addition to sea turtle 

protection. In addition, each service has a network of regional or field 

offices with sea turtle protection responsibilities, which coordinate with 

other offices within the service when necessary. For example, NMFS 

relies primarily on four regional offices (Northeast, Pacific Islands, 

Southeast, and Southwest) to issue sea turtle section 7 take statements 

and lead other protection efforts. In each of these four regions, NMFS 

also has fisheries science centers that conduct research on marine 

resources, including sea turtles. Similarly, FWS has multiple regional and 

field offices with responsibility for sea turtle protection efforts. Unlike 

NMFS’s oversight, however, FWS’s oversight of sea turtles falls primarily 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

under the purview of its Southeast and Southwest regional offices and a 

few field offices—in particular, its North Florida Ecological Services Office 

in Jacksonville—in part because most sea turtle nesting in the United 

States takes place on beaches in the Southeast. According to officials 

from both services and representatives of external parties whom we 

spoke with, the regional and field offices from both services also work 

with external parties, such as state agencies, industry, and 

nongovernmental organizations, on sea turtle protection activities.

The services have coordinated with each other on some but not all of 

their take authorizations, even though experts have pointed out the 

importance of such coordination when assessing threats to sea turtle 

species. Given the services’ joint administrative responsibilities for 

protecting sea turtles under the Endangered Species Act, a memorandum 

of understanding was established that defined those responsibilities and 

called for coordination of certain activities. This memorandum, however, 

has not been updated since it went into effect in 1977 and lacks clarity on 

several points.

We found that the services coordinate some of their activities when 

deciding whether to authorize sea turtle take. For example:

• The services have sometimes coordinated before issuing or denying 

permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act. 

Specifically, NMFS officials told us that before issuing science and 

research permits, they routinely consult with FWS or the states, 

unless the proposed action is expected to occur solely in federal 

waters. Similarly, FWS officials told us that when deciding whether to 

permit facilities for sea turtle rehabilitation, they have also coordinated 

with NMFS by consulting with the coordinator of NMFS’s sea turtle 

stranding program and with NMFS’s sea turtle veterinarian regarding 

the best care for the species.13

 

13NMFS coordinates the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, which operates in 

most coastal regions of the United States. The network was established in 1980 to collect 

information on and document strandings of sea turtles and includes federal, state, and 

private partners. NMFS defines strandings as turtles that wash ashore, dead or alive, or 

are found floating dead or in a weakened condition.

NMFS and FWS 

Coordinate on Some 

but Not All Take 

Decisions 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

• For section 7 take statements, officials from both services told us that 

they work together if an action is expected to affect sea turtles both on 

land and in marine environments. Such coordination typically occurs 

in the services’ regional or field offices. For example, FWS officials 

told us that they coordinate with NMFS officials for land-based 

projects that may also have in-water components, such as 

breakwaters.

14

In contrast, we also found instances where the services have not 

coordinated or shared take information before making take decisions. For 

example:

• According to NMFS officials we spoke with, for incidental take permits 

issued under section 10(a)(1)(B), NMFS has not coordinated on all 

permit applications in the past.15 NMFS officials also told us, however, 

that they are currently coordinating with FWS on an application for 

gillnet fishing in state waters in North Carolina.16 Similarly, FWS 

officials told us that they do not send NMFS applications for either 

type of section 10 permit for review and comment before issuance. 

The officials also told us that they solicit public comments via the 

Federal Register, which can include comments from local, state, and 

federal agencies.17

• With regard to section 7 take statements, if an action is expected to 

fall solely within the purview of one service, which is typically the 

case, officials from both services told us that they generally do not 

coordinate or share take information before issuing the take 

statement. Coordination on section 7 take statements is important, 

officials from both services told us, because such take constitutes the 

majority of authorized sea turtle take and, for NMFS, represents the 

majority of lethal take. In some instances, however, coordination 

 

 

14Breakwaters are structures placed offshore to reduce the amount of wave energy 

reaching a protected area.

15In commenting on a draft of this report, NOAA stated that to date NMFS has issued only 

four section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, three of which are still active. Similarly, FWS officials told 

us that FWS has issued few section 10(a)(1)(B) permits.

16Gillnets are large, rectangular, mesh nets that can entangle sea turtles, preventing them 

from surfacing for air and thereby drowning them.

17The Endangered Species Act requires both services to seek such comments.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

between the services does occur. For example, officials from NMFS’s 

Pacific Islands Regional Office told us that they coordinate closely 

with FWS and also send FWS copies of all section 7 consultations.

FWS officials told us that they recently coordinated with NMFS by 

requesting comments from NMFS officials on a draft programmatic 

biological opinion. The opinion, developed under section 7, applies to

all sand placement projects in Florida, including beach nourishment 

activities, initiated after the opinion was finalized in 2011. According to 

the officials, such projects account for approximately 90 percent of the 

biological opinions the service develops for sea turtles. 

University researchers and representatives of nongovernmental 

organizations we spoke with told us that coordination between NMFS and 

FWS on section 10 take permits and section 7 take statements is 

important because each service should consider take anticipated by the 

other service when assessing threats to sea turtle populations as part of 

the jeopardy determination process. Specifically, some of these experts 

told us that such coordination is necessary because both services are 

issuing take statements and permits that can affect a given single species 

of sea turtle. As a result, each service should consider all threats to that 

species, regardless of whether such threats occur on land or at sea.18

Our prior work has also shown the importance of coordination and 

information sharing. For example, we found that without coordination 

among federal agencies with fragmented or overlapping programs, scarce 

funds are wasted, program customers are confused and frustrated, and 

the overall effectiveness of the federal effort is limited.

Moreover, a handbook jointly developed by the services emphasizes the 

importance of coordination between NMFS and FWS, stating that 

coordination is “critical” when developing section 7 consultations. 

19

 

18The services must examine the current status of the species across its entire range, as 

well as the environmental baseline of the species within the action area, to make a 

jeopardy determination. Rock Creek Alliance v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 390 

F. Supp. 2d 993, 1010 (D. Mont. 2005). Even within the action area, however, the services 

are not necessarily required to numerically add together all sources of take anticipated by 

other activities. Oceana, Inc. v. Evans, 384 F. Supp. 2d 203, 230-231 (D.D.C. 2005). 

Experts we spoke with, however, agreed that tallying anticipated take is an important tool 

available to the services as they consider what activities may threaten the continued 

existence of sea turtles.

Our work has 

19GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
 

Page 11 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

also shown that information sharing is a key practice for enhancing and 

sustaining collaboration.20

Given the services’ joint administrative responsibilities for sea turtle 

protection, the services in 1977 established a memorandum of 

understanding to define their roles. The memorandum calls for the 

services to coordinate on certain activities, including consulting with the 

other service before publishing regulations, establishing recovery teams, 

and issuing or denying “permits.” Officials from both services told us they 

have coordinated on some activities as called for in the memorandum, 

which is still in effect. For example, the national sea turtle coordinators 

from both services jointly lead efforts to develop recovery plans.

Because the services are not consistently 

sharing information on anticipated take, they may be making jeopardy 

determinations about sea turtle species without knowing how much take 

the counterpart service has authorized, and the combined take may be 

harming threatened and endangered sea turtles and delaying their 

recovery. 

We found, however, that the memorandum of understanding is outdated 

and has not been updated to reflect changes in the services’ sea turtle 

protection efforts. For example, we found that the memorandum calls only 

for consultation on “permits,” which, according to officials from both 

services, would imply that it applies only to permits described under 

sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and 

therefore does not call for coordination on section 7 take statements, 

even though actions under section 7 account for the majority of sea turtle 

take. According to an FWS official, this limitation of the memorandum 

may reflect the fact that section 7 take statements were not part of the 

process until amendments to the act in 1982, whereas the memorandum 

was signed in 1977. In addition, the memorandum designates FWS’s 

Federal Wildlife Permit Office as a clearinghouse to retain all applications 

for sea turtle permits or certifications; according to an FWS official, 

however, FWS no longer has such a clearinghouse.

Moreover, the memorandum of understanding is unclear on the nature 

and degree of coordination the services are to engage in. Specifically, we 

found the following areas where the memorandum was unclear: 

 

20GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

• The memorandum does not clearly articulate the coordination-related 

steps each service is to take before issuing or denying take permits. 

For example, the memorandum does not lay out whether a service 

should share information on take it has previously permitted for a 

particular species; neither does the memorandum state whether a 

service should provide the other service a copy of take requests it 

receives or if it is sufficient for the services to simply notify each other 

that a request has been received.

• The memorandum does not explain at what stages of the take 

permitting process such coordination should occur. For example, the 

memorandum does not specify if the services should coordinate 

(1) upon receipt of a request for a permit for activity anticipated to 

result in take, (2) when analysis within a service is initiated, or (3) after 

a service has completed its evaluation of a permit application. 

• The memorandum leaves room for interpretation by each service on 

what degree of coordination is required. For example, according to 

FWS officials, they interpret the memorandum as calling for general 

cooperation, not necessarily for coordination with NMFS on all the 

specific activities laid out in the memorandum.

Even though the memorandum of understanding is out of date and 

unclear, neither service has developed formal guidance to supplement 

the memorandum or has offered any plans to update it. Without clear 

language and agreement about what degree of coordination is expected 

of each service, it is unlikely that consistent, meaningful coordination will 

occur.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

NMFS and FWS each maintain databases that contain information about 

take consultations for sea turtles and other species under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and take permits under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 

10(a)(1)(B). Not all of these databases, however, require entry of 

anticipated or actual take data, and the services do not use them to 

analyze sea turtle take. Instead, the services’ national sea turtle

coordinators have developed their own documents for collecting 

anticipated take information, although they have not systematically used 

them to analyze total take. Our prior work has shown a need for tracking 

total take information,21

NMFS maintains the following two databases to collect consultation 

information and some sea turtle take data:

but the services do not plan to update their 

databases to add such capability.

• In NMFS’s Authorizations and Permits for Protected Species 

database, NMFS staff are required to enter information about take 

anticipated from permits primarily for scientific research or actions to 

enhance propagation or survival of a listed species under the 

Endangered Species Act’s section 10(a)(1)(A).22

 

21GAO, Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Has Incomplete 

Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7 Consultations, 

Through the use of 

this database, NMFS collects a number of details about anticipated 

take for scientific research permits, including the species and sex of 

animals to be taken. For example, the database may show that 25 

juvenile green sea turtles are expected to be captured and released 

during an activity designed to tag and weigh the turtles and take blood 

samples. Permittees may directly enter actual take data into the 

database if they submit the data online to NMFS, but they may also 

submit such data in writing to NMFS staff. As a result, a NMFS official 

told us, the database has incomplete data on actual take, although, 

other officials also told us, for section 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) 

permits, they have other sources of actual take data that are not 

stored in the database.

GAO-09-550

(Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2009).

22The database also contains limited data on incidental take anticipated by permits for 

nonfederal entities under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the act, but entry of anticipated and actual 

take data is not required, nor is such take tracked.

Neither Service Uses 

Its Section 7 and 

Section 10 Databases 

to Comprehensively 

Collect and Analyze

Data on Anticipated

or Actual Take
 

Page 14 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

• NMFS’s Public Consultation Tracking System is used to store data on 

proposed actions by federal agencies consulting with NMFS under 

section 7. Although the database has a narrative field for anticipated 

take data, and staff can use a drop-down menu to label the 

anticipated take as either lethal or injurious, NMFS has no 

requirement for staff to enter this information into the database, and 

the database does not have a field for capturing actual take data. As a 

result, a NMFS official told us, some regions consistently enter take 

data into this database, and others do not. 

FWS also maintains the following two databases to collect consultation 

information and some take data:

• FWS’s Service Permit Issuance and Tracking System stores 

information about take anticipated by both types of take permits 

issued under section 10. As a result of an October 2011 update 

making entry of such data mandatory, FWS staff are now required to 

enter anticipated take data into this system. Although the October 

2011 update will help ensure that the information entered into the 

database is more complete, it will still not be comprehensive, in part 

because FWS’s Region 5, which covers the northeastern United 

States, does not use the database for all of its permits, and the 

database does not have a field for capturing actual take data.

• FWS’s Tracking and Integrated Logging System is used to collect 

information about actions potentially resulting in the take of sea turtles 

by federal agencies consulting with FWS under section 7. It is 

optional, however, for agency staff to enter anticipated and actual take 

data into this database, and the information is entered in a narrative 

form, so data are not entered in a consistent format. For example,

some entries list miles of beach expected to be affected, while others 

instead list the number of turtles and nests expected to be taken. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, Interior officials said it is not 

possible to determine the exact number of individual sea turtles that 

would be taken during actions such as beach nourishment projects 

because the number of nests on a beach varies annually and the 

exact number of nests missed during surveys cannot be known. In 

addition, the officials questioned the value of “standardized” data.”

In part because of differences in the collection and types of take data in 

the services’ databases, we found that the services generally do not use 

their databases to systematically analyze anticipated and actual take. 

NMFS officials told us, however, that for section 10 permits, because they 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

have some take data in the Authorizations and Permits for Protected 

Species database—as well as some data from sources outside the 

database, such as the Public Consultation Tracking System and 

published and unpublished literature—they analyze anticipated and actual 

take using the database in combination with these other data sources.

In the absence of servicewide databases that comprehensively capture 

anticipated take data, both services’ national sea turtle coordinators 

maintain documents that collect information about anticipated take. These 

documents, however, are not structured to easily allow—nor have the 

services provided us clear evidence that they have used them for—

analyzing total anticipated take. For example, NMFS has spreadsheets 

with fields, by species, where data on anticipated lethal and nonlethal 

take may be entered. According to NMFS officials we spoke with, 

because section 10 take permits and section 7 take statements can 

authorize take for a single year or over multiple years, some of these data 

are in a per-year format, while other data cover several years. In addition, 

some data fields contain both numbers and text, making it difficult to 

analyze or calculate total anticipated take.23

 

23A congressional committee that in 1982 was considering amendments to the 

Endangered Species Act indicated that the committee preferred the incidental take 

statement to contain a numerical value: “[W]here possible, the impact should be specified 

in terms of a numerical limitation on the federal agency or permittee or licensee.” The 

committee recognized, however, that a numerical value would not always be available:

“The Committee recognizes . . . it may not be possible to determine the number of eggs of 

an endangered or threatened fish which will be sucked into a power plant when water is 

used as a cooling mechanism. The Committee intends only that such numbers be 

established where possible.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 27 (1982). In 2007, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that if the service chooses to employ a nonnumerical 

surrogate for take, the chosen surrogate must be able to perform the functions of a 

numerical limitation, in particular, establishing a trigger requiring the parties to reinitiate 

consultation. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 

2007).

As a result, NMFS officials 

told us that it can be difficult to analyze total take using these 

spreadsheets. Moreover, the spreadsheets do not track actual take, and 

therefore NMFS cannot use these spreadsheets to analyze actual take 

data. Furthermore, while some officials stated they had access to these 

spreadsheets, others did not have access. For example, some NMFS

officials told us that these spreadsheets were regularly provided to 

regional officials and used in section 7 consultations. During our review, 

however, other NMFS officials told us that the spreadsheets were not 

made available to them. In particular, one regional biologist told us he 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

was not aware that anticipated sea turtle take data from each of the 

regions were being collected by headquarters. This official remarked that 

such data would be useful to him when making jeopardy determinations.

Similarly, FWS’s national sea turtle coordinator told us that FWS recently 

developed a document in which the agency can collect data on all of the 

service’s anticipated sea turtle take and that she plans to share this 

document with FWS field officials who conduct section 7 consultations on 

projects that may affect sea turtles. This step is encouraging, but we 

noted a number of limitations in the document that we believe could 

hinder its usefulness in calculating total anticipated take. For example, 

anticipated take is not expressed in a standardized format and instead 

may be expressed in terms of miles or square feet of affected beach. In 

one case an action was expected to affect 7.7 linear miles of beach, while

in another the action was expected to affect almost 15,000 square feet. In 

addition, the document includes actions that may occur over different 

periods. For example, one action was expected to last 25 years, while 

another was expected to last only 8 months. This variability may also 

complicate any analysis of total anticipated take over a certain period.

In commenting on a draft of this report, Interior stated that FWS officials

face difficulties in estimating and monitoring actual take. According to 

Interior, much of FWS’s section 7 consultation involves beach 

nourishment projects. Most of the take associated with these projects is

due to nests being destroyed because they were not detected and 

removed before construction activities began or due to a reduction in the 

number of new sea turtle nests established because of disturbance from 

construction activities. Such take would likely be small and difficult to 

detect, according to Interior’s comments. Interior also commented that the 

reason FWS officials express take as the amount of beach area affected 

is the difficulty they face in estimating the actual number of sea turtles or 

nests that are likely to be destroyed. In addition, Interior stated that take is 

not expressed over a consistent time period because the agency is 

limited to analyzing take anticipated from proposed actions for the time 

periods that are requested, which may be for several months or over 

several years. According to Interior’s comments, estimating, tracking, and 

analyzing take is further complicated by the fact that take may be lethal or 

nonlethal and may affect the turtles during different life stages. For 

example, because of the high natural mortality of sea turtles during their 

earlier life stages, take of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings caused by beach 

nourishment has much less reproductive impact on the population than 

take of older turtles in commercial fisheries under a NMFS take 

authorization. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Although we recognize the inherent difficulties involved in estimating and 

monitoring actual take, according to some experts and NMFS officials we 

spoke with, and previous work that we have conducted, it is important for 

the services to gather information on total take. Specifically, according to 

some experts and NMFS officials we spoke with, total take should be 

considered when making jeopardy determinations or approving additional 

take authorizations.24 Such considerations are particularly important in the 

case of sea turtles because consultations occur at several NMFS regional

and FWS regional and field offices, and sea turtles are both highly 

migratory and wide-ranging. Further, as we reported in May 2009, it is 

critical for federal staff involved in consultations to track total take for a 

species to strengthen their understanding of its status and to factor that 

knowledge into future consultation decisions.25

Nevertheless, officials we spoke with from both services told us that 

because of limited funding, among other reasons, they have no plans to 

update any of the databases to require the entry of anticipated and actual 

take. For example, NMFS officials told us they plan to launch a new 

Public Consultation Tracking System in 2012, but because of a lack of 

funding, the new system is not likely to add a data field for actual take. In 

We concluded at the time 

that without total take information for a species, FWS staff may not be 

able to effectively evaluate the collective impacts of federal actions over 

time, across multiple offices, and across species’ ranges. Our report also 

noted that development of a systematic take-tracking system would be 

particularly useful for wide-ranging species. We recommended that FWS 

continue to develop existing databases, in as strategic and expeditious a 

manner as possible, to enable systematic tracking of cumulative take for 

all species affected by formal consultations. 

 

24The services have been sued by environmental groups over the years because of how 

they calculate the environmental baseline for listed species. For example, one court held 

that an environmental baseline calculation was inadequate where the service merely listed 

the other activities affecting the species without making them part of its analysis. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp. 2d 121, 127-128 (D.D.C. 2001). When the 

agencies issued new biological opinions, the court clarified that a biological opinion is 

adequate if it takes the environmental baseline seriously and makes a concerted effort to 

evaluate the impact of the agency’s proposed action against that backdrop. Defenders of 

Wildlife v. Norton, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26558, (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2003). In Oceana v. 

Evans, the same court specifically found that the environmental baseline analysis was 

adequate where it discussed anticipated take from other projects, even though it did not 

numerically add together take from different sources.

25GAO-09-550. 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

addition, according to an FWS official, no implementation schedule has 

been set for proposed enhancements to the Tracking and Integrated 

Logging System database. We believe that by not modifying their existing 

or planned databases, the services will not be able to use them to collect, 

analyze, or communicate complete information on anticipated and actual 

take that has been authorized. In commenting on a draft of this report, 

NOAA noted that NMFS is aware that some take occurs that has not 

been authorized by either NMFS or FWS, such as ongoing take in state 

fisheries, and that to have a comprehensive view of the status of sea 

turtle species requires consideration of both authorized and unauthorized 

take.

The services have jointly developed a handbook stating that a biological 

opinion stemming from a section 7 consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act should, among other things, be written so that the general 

public can understand the logic that led to the biological conclusion. But 

sea turtle experts told us, and we also found, that the services’ biological 

opinions do not clearly describe how they reach their conclusions.26

In 1998, NMFS and FWS jointly developed a handbook to provide internal 

guidance to assist staff responsible for preparing biological opinions as 

part of the section 7 consultation process. The handbook, among other 

things, emphasizes the importance of clarity and conciseness, stating that 

biological opinions should be written so the general public can understand 

the logic that led to the biological conclusion and be complete enough to 

withstand the rigors of a legal review.

Some 

officials from both services acknowledged that their biological opinions 

are not always clear.

 

26Our review focused solely on whether the biological opinions themselves were clear and 

transparent using the services’ section 7 consultation handbook’s criterion that the 

opinions should be written so the general public could understand the services’

determinations. Our findings should not be interpreted as an assessment of whether the 

biological opinions adhere to applicable laws. Generally speaking, if the rationale of such 

an opinion were to be challenged in court, the court would apply a test that is fairly 

deferential to the service. It would not second-guess the service’s scientific or technical 

decisions as long as a reasoned basis for the service’s conclusions could reasonably be 

discerned from the entire administrative record supporting the opinion. See, for example, 

Oceana v. Evans, 384 F. Supp. 2d 203, 224-25. See also Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. 

Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 497 (2004), and Bowman Transp., Inc. v. ArkansasBest Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974).

NMFS’s and FWS’s 

Biological Opinions 

Do Not Clearly 

Explain Rationales for

Determining Whether 

an Action Will 

Jeopardize Sea 

Turtles
 

Page 19 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Despite the call for clarity in the services’ handbook, some sea turtle 

experts we spoke with told us that they believe the opinions do not clearly 

explain how the services determined that an action anticipated to result in 

take of sea turtles will or will not jeopardize the species’ continued 

existence. Furthermore, according to some experts and officials we spoke 

with, they believe the opinions also should make clear to what extent the 

service considered all sources of take. Without a full accounting of take 

previously authorized within a service and by the other service—as well 

as take resulting from other sources, such as fisheries not under federal 

jurisdiction—the opinions may not consider the full range of take that sea 

turtle populations are subjected to.

Our review of selected biological opinions developed by the services 

found a number of examples of these same concerns. Specifically, we 

found that:

• Although biological opinions can contain detailed information on, 

among other things, the proposed action, the species likely to be 

affected, and threats to their survival, it was not always clear how the 

services analyzed and synthesized the information presented into a 

determination of jeopardy or no jeopardy. For example:

• In one NMFS biological opinion we reviewed, NMFS determined 

that over a 3-year period, despite a decline in the number of

loggerhead nests on U.S. shores and a lack of data on the 

species’ overall abundance, the anticipated lethal take of 346 

loggerhead sea turtles by Atlantic shark fisheries would not 

measurably affect loggerhead survival. The biological opinion did 

not present a clear explanation of how NMFS reached this 

conclusion, however, and we could not trace the logic from the 

biological information presented in the opinion to the conclusion 

NMFS reached that this particular level of loggerhead sea turtle 

take would not jeopardize the species. 

• In one section 7 consultation about a proposed beach sand 

replenishment project, where some take of green, hawksbill, 

Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles was 

anticipated, the biological opinion prepared by FWS provided 

information about the species (such as population and nesting 

trends) and potential effects of the proposed action (such as burial 

of nests or hatchlings from the sand placement). But it was not 

clear from the opinion how such information was factored into the 

analysis or how FWS incorporated this information into the final 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

jeopardy determination. This biological opinion was particularly 

confusing because the conclusion discusses the take in terms of 

the number of miles of beach affected, not the number of nests

affected, as one would have expected from the information 

presented in the body of the opinion. 

• The opinions do not always make clear the extent to which all sources 

of take for a species were considered. For example: 

• In a biological opinion we reviewed concerning the spiny dogfish 

fishery, NMFS describes 12 other fisheries operating in the same 

geographic area for which it had previously authorized the take of 

loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and green turtles. 

Although NMFS’s biological opinion for the spiny dogfish fishery 

acknowledged the existence of the 12 other fisheries, the text of 

the opinion did not state the extent to which NMFS considered the 

cumulative take of all 13 fisheries in determining whether the spiny 

dogfish fishery would jeopardize the four sea turtle species in that 

area. 

• Three biological opinions prepared by FWS within one 6-month 

period focused on the effects on the green, hawksbill, Kemp’s 

ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles of replenishing 

beaches in three “action areas” within a single Florida county. In 

each of the three opinions, FWS concluded that the relatively

small percentage of beach affected by the proposed action would 

not jeopardize the species. What is not clear from our review of 

the biological opinions, however, is whether or to what extent 

FWS considered, among other factors, the anticipated take from

the first of the three projects when developing the second opinion 

or considered the anticipated take from the first two projects when 

developing the third opinion. Under the Endangered Species Act, 

the environmental baseline section of the services’ biological 

opinions must consider the anticipated impacts of other activities 

that have undergone or are undergoing section 7 consultation in 

the action area. At least one court has noted, however, that the 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

services must consider all information about threats both within 

and outside the action area in making jeopardy determinations.27

Some officials from both services acknowledged that the biological 

opinions they prepare are not always clear. Specifically, some NMFS 

officials we spoke with acknowledged that their opinions are not always 

transparent. In fact, materials used to train NMFS staff on how to write 

effective biological opinions have also recognized this weakness. 

Specifically, the training materials note that biological opinions routinely 

do not link the facts and evidence to conclusions and, as a result, “leave 

readers to form a picture of how this evidence supports our conclusion.” 

FWS officials also told us that including clear and transparent rationales 

in biological opinions is a struggle for all listed species, not just sea 

turtles. Nonetheless, if the analyses and decisions documented in 

biological opinions are not transparent, neither Congress nor the public 

can be assured that the services are adequately protecting vulnerable 

sea turtle populations as required by the Endangered Species Act.

Neither service has developed its own operational plan describing the 

actions it will take to achieve goals set forth by sea turtle recovery plans. 

In the absence of such service-specific operational plans, officials we 

spoke with from each service said they use the recovery plans to guide 

their sea turtle protection activities. We found, however, that these 

recovery plans do not include key elements of effective planning, that the 

services do not always consider the recovery plans’ goals when 

performing day-to-day activities, and that the jointly developed recovery 

plans do not provide each service with operational plans specific to each 

service. As a result, some regional NMFS officials are beginning to 

develop such plans, although FWS officials are not.

The services have developed 11 joint sea turtle recovery plans, which

provide guidance that includes both high-level goals and specific actions 

that the services use to guide their recovery efforts. We did not review 

 

27The court noted that the Endangered Species Act’s regulations allow FWS to limit its 

cumulative effects analysis to the action area for the project being examined, but the 

service’s evaluation of the species’ current status and ultimate jeopardy determination are 

not limited in geographic scope. Rock Creek Alliance v. United States Fish & Wildlife 

Service, 390 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001, 1010 (D. Mont. 2005). Thus, FWS must examine the 

current status of a species across its entire range, along with the effects of the action in 

the action area, to make a jeopardy determination.

Neither NMFS nor 

FWS Has Developed 

Its Own Operational 

Plan on How to 

Achieve the Goals 

Established in Sea 

Turtle Recovery Plans
 

Page 22 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

these plans for compliance with the legal requirements for such plans 

under the Endangered Species Act. Instead, we reviewed them to see 

whether they included key elements of effective planning, which we have 

identified in previous work.28

Moreover, some experts and NMFS officials indicated that the services 

have not always considered the goals laid out in recovery plans when 

performing day-to-day activities related to sea turtles or when writing 

biological opinions and making jeopardy determinations that authorize 

take. Specifically, one researcher commented that the services have “an 

incredible tool” in the form of species recovery plans but that there is a 

“disconnect” between these plans and the biological opinions they

prepare. Specifically, in the view of individuals knowledgeable about sea 

turtles, biological opinions should, but currently do not, demonstrate how 

take anticipated from a proposed action will not hinder progress toward 

recovery plan goals. Similarly, some experts and officials from NMFS 

science centers observed that biological opinions make little reference to 

recovery plans and that it is difficult to understand how the criteria for 

recovery laid out in these plans factor in when NMFS determines in an 

opinion whether a proposed action will jeopardize sea turtle populations.

In commenting on a draft of this report, Interior stated that FWS has

 Our review found that they do not. For 

example, our prior work on strategic planning has shown that an effective 

plan should describe, among other things, specific activities managers 

and staff are to engage in to meet the plan’s goals, as well as how an 

agency’s performance goals relate to the plan’s overall goals. But we 

found that the joint sea turtle recovery plans provide both services with 

high-level goals and some specific actions and direction for recovery 

efforts without detailing specific activities each service’s managers and 

staff are to engage in to achieve these goals and without linking the 

services’ annual performance goals to recovery plan goals. For example, 

the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead recovery plan sets a goal of increasing 

nests annually to at least 14,000 in certain areas. The recovery plan

describes high-level actions (such as establishing a network of study sites 

to monitor trends in the species’ abundance while at sea), but it does not 

lay out specific steps the services should take or the performance

measures they should use to ensure they are making progress toward 

achieving this goal.

 

28GAO, Agencies’ Strategic Plans under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate 

Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 1997).
 

Page 23 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

mentioned recovery goals in the service’s biological opinions for the last 

2 to 3 years.

In addition, jointly developed recovery plans do not provide each service 

with operational plans specific to each service. NMFS and FWS officials 

told us that the services rely on the recovery plans to help set priorities for 

each sea turtle species and to obtain funding for actions in line with these 

priorities. For example, NMFS officials told us that the service’s 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center established a marine turtle program 

in 1998 in response to a recovery plan for sea turtles in the Pacific. The 

recovery plans, however, apply to the collective sea turtle protection 

efforts of both NMFS and FWS and consequently do not provide each 

service with its own operational blueprint for working toward the recovery 

plans’ goals. For example, all the plans include cost estimates associated 

with recovery actions, but because the plans cover both services, they do 

not provide each service with an estimate of the resources it will need to 

achieve recovery goals. We believe that service-specific operational plans 

could describe the specific tasks to be completed on an annual basis by 

managers and staff for each individual service to implement the recovery 

actions identified in the recovery plans. Although there is no legal 

requirement to prepare them, without such plans and performance 

measures specific to NMFS and FWS, managers from each service, 

Congress, and the public cannot be assured that the services are each 

taking, and being held accountable for, the steps needed to achieve the 

goals articulated in sea turtle recovery plans. 

Recognizing the lack of a national NMFS-specific sea turtle operational 

plan, NMFS officials from one region we spoke with said they are 

developing an operational plan for their region, and two other regions 

have already developed such plans for their regions. For example, 

officials from one region told us they are developing a region-specific plan 

because they believe that a regional plan is needed to identify regionspecific activities, such as establishing milestones to gauge their progress 

toward meeting the recovery goals. The two NMFS region-specific plans 

we reviewed contain elements of effective plans, such as results-oriented 

goals. The plans also include elements that are absent from sea turtle 

recovery plans, such as links between those activities and specific steps 

managers and staff are to take and strategies to hold managers 

accountable. NMFS’s northeastern regional office, for example, 

developed a 5-year plan that identifies the region’s direction and goals. 

The plan includes a schedule to implement its sea turtle recovery efforts 

for fiscal year 2011. The schedule outlines the sea turtle program’s goals 

and activities needed to achieve them, a plan for accomplishing the 
 

Page 24 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

activities, an anticipated completion date for the activities, a specific staff 

person responsible for each activity, the funding required to complete an 

activity, and the status of the activity. Such region-specific operational 

plans, however, do not exist for all of NMFS’s regional offices.

FWS officials, on the other hand, told us that their regional and field 

offices have not developed FWS-specific sea turtle operational plans and 

do not believe such plans are needed. The officials explained that 

because the vast majority of sea turtle nesting occurs in Region 4 where 

the national sea turtle coordinator is located, they did not believe that 

developing formal operational plans was necessary. Further, officials told 

us that because the service itself cannot directly implement recovery plan 

goals, they do not believe they need a service-specific plan for achieving 

them. For example, service officials told us that they work with 

conservation partners such as the states and nongovernmental 

organizations to put recovery measures in place—such as revisions of 

local ordinances to minimize the impact of beach lighting on sea turtle 

hatchlings. Nevertheless, an operational plan would allow the service to 

identify steps, such as conducting outreach and education, developing 

model ordinances, or establishing grant programs, that could direct and 

better facilitate the conservation partners’ actions toward the recovery 

plan goals.

For wide-ranging species like sea turtles, which spend some time both on

land and in the sea, coordination between federal agencies tasked with 

their protection is vital. NMFS and FWS have coordinated on some sea 

turtle protection activities, such as developing recovery plans, but the 

services do not consistently coordinate before issuing an incidental take 

statement under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A 

memorandum of understanding broadly defines some of the services’ 

coordination responsibilities under the act, but it is silent on whether the 

services should share take data related to section 7 of the act, which 

constitutes the majority of take. It also does not clearly articulate the 

coordination-related steps each service is to take before issuing or 

denying a take permit or specify how the services are to share take data. 

Without knowing the extent of take anticipated by the counterpart service, 

each service is missing information about the status of sea turtle species, 

information that could assist in preparing biological opinions. Effective 

coordination is made more difficult by the fact that the services do not 

comprehensively require entry of anticipated and actual take information 

in the databases they use to manage section 7 consultations and section 

Conclusions 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

10 permits. Compiling and analyzing data on anticipated and actual take 

could help officials determine how many turtles the services have 

authorized be removed from existing populations and would give them

another tool that could help gauge the success of their sea turtle 

protection efforts. 

Furthermore, the biological opinions NMFS and FWS develop in 

association with section 7 consultations do not clearly explain the 

analyses and rationales used in determining whether proposed actions 

will jeopardize sea turtles. Without a clear explanation of the analyses 

and key factors leading to each determination of jeopardy or no jeopardy, 

the general public cannot easily trace the services’ logic and be assured 

that the anticipated level of take will not jeopardize sea turtles. Finally, the

services do not have service-specific operational plans to help them 

achieve the goals of the jointly developed sea turtle recovery plans. 

Without operational plans that include key elements—such as specific 

activities, milestones, and performance measures—and that each service 

coordinates among the regional and field offices and with the other 

service, neither NMFS or FWS can assure Congress or the public that it 

is making progress in protecting sea turtle populations.

To improve the effectiveness of the services’ sea turtle protection and 

recovery efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, and that the Secretary of the Interior direct the 

Director of FWS, to take the following four actions:

1. Revise the existing memorandum of understanding to clarify what 

specific steps the services will take to coordinate before issuing or 

denying sea turtle take permits, steps that, at a minimum, should 

include sharing data on the take each service has authorized. In 

addition, the memorandum should be revised to include section 7 take 

statements, and the services should adhere to the terms of the 

revised memorandum.

2. Modify each service’s existing databases or develop new ones to 

require entry and analysis of authorized and actual take data.

3. Direct NMFS and FWS staff to write biological opinions so that the 

analyses they conduct and the rationale they use in arriving at the

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 26 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

jeopardy or no jeopardy determination for actions anticipated to result 

in the take of sea turtles are clearer and more transparent. 

4. Develop operational plans specific to NMFS and FWS, which should 

describe the activities each service will perform to achieve the goals 

established in sea turtle recovery plans and include key elements of 

effective plans that we identified in this report. Such plans should be 

coordinated among the regional and field offices within both services, 

as well as between the services’ headquarters.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce and 

the Interior for comment. In its written comments, reproduced in 

appendix II, NOAA, providing comments on behalf of Commerce, 

generally agreed with our recommendations. In commenting on the 

recommendation that the services update the memorandum of 

understanding, NOAA agreed and stated that it will work with FWS to 

determine whether modifications or additions are necessary. In response 

to the recommendation that the services modify their databases or 

develop new ones, NOAA agreed that improvements to the existing 

databases would consolidate take information in a streamlined manner, 

but it noted that such modifications are contingent on reprioritization of 

existing or additional resources for such changes. NOAA also said that it 

often faced significant challenges gathering information on some of the 

largest sources of in-water takes, such as take from fisheries. 

In response to the recommendation that the services more clearly explain

in biological opinions the rationale for their jeopardy determinations, 

NOAA said that while it believes that its biological opinions meet all legal 

standards of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative 

Procedure Act, it recognizes the benefit of ensuring that biological 

opinions contain an explanation sufficient to ensure that the basis of the 

opinion is understandable and transparent to members of the general 

public who may not read the full administrative record that would be 

provided to a court. NOAA also said that it will review its quality 

assurance and training mechanisms to determine whether additional 

actions are needed to improve the clarity of biological opinions. NOAA 

suggested a rewording of the recommendation, and we have modified the

recommendation to clarify it. In response to our final recommendation—

that each service develop operational plans to help achieve the goals in 

sea turtle recovery plans—NOAA stated that implementation of recovery 

plans depends on availability of funds and that it would work internally, as 

well as externally with FWS, to determine whether additional planning 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

activities would enhance the recovery and conservation of listed sea 

turtles. 

In addition, NOAA included some general comments on the draft report.

In particular, NOAA stated that by not recognizing the lack of data and 

information for many fundamental aspects of both sea turtle biology and 

ecology, and the effects of human-caused activities on sea turtles, the 

draft report was missing an important contextual element. NOAA stated 

that these data gaps are important to consider when assessing the 

performance of any recovery and conservation program. We 

acknowledge that such data gaps exist, but we believe that in light of 

these gaps, improved coordination, data collection, and planning are 

especially important to assist the services with their sea turtle protection 

efforts. NOAA also raised a concern about our finding that biological 

opinions should provide more clarity for the general public, and NOAA 

stated that all of its opinions provide an appropriate explanation for its 

jeopardy or no jeopardy determination. NOAA also recommended that we 

clarify that our report did not attempt to review the opinions as a court 

would, with the benefit of an agency’s full administrative record. We did 

not review the services’ biological opinions to assess the legal sufficiency 

of the analyses or jeopardy determinations contained in the biological 

opinions. Rather, we reviewed selected sea turtle biological opinions for 

clarity and transparency, as called for in the services’ joint consultation 

handbook. We added some additional language to the report to further 

reinforce these points. Finally, NOAA stated that it disagrees that 

compilation and analysis of anticipated and actual take are requirements 

for consultation or gauging the adequacy of sea turtle protection and 

recovery measures. Our report does not state that collection and analysis 

of such data are or should be required. Instead our report explains that on 

the basis of previous GAO work and according to some experts and 

officials we spoke with, it is important for the services to gather 

information on total take to help inform their sea turtle conservation

decisions. NOAA said it believed some confusion and inaccuracies 

existed in the report’s background section and suggested some technical 

changes. While we believe the information presented in this section of the 

report is clear and accurate, we have considered NOAA’s comments and 

have made changes as appropriate. NOAA also provided other technical 

comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

In its written comments, reproduced in appendix III, Interior generally 

concurred with our recommendations and also provided some general 

comments. In particular, Interior said that the report did not adequately 

acknowledge the difficulty of determining and analyzing take of sea 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

turtles. We have added such a discussion to the report. Nevertheless, 

while we acknowledge the difficulty of determining and analyzing actual 

take data, we continue to believe that if the services do not track the 

actual effects of the take they authorize, they will lack a useful tool for 

helping ensure that their actions are protecting sea turtles. In addition, 

Interior stated that the report appears to criticize FWS for describing 

anticipated take of sea turtles in its section 7 consultations as beach miles 

affected rather than the number of sea turtles or nests that would be 

destroyed. Interior stated that the report fails to acknowledge that such 

descriptions are used because of the difficulty in estimating actual 

numbers of individuals or nests taken. We do not believe that our report 

criticizes the use of habitat descriptions, such as beach miles, and in fact 

the report includes information stating that their use is legally permissible. 

We continue to believe, however, that the services should 

comprehensively collect and analyze take data and that not reporting 

these data in a consistent format complicates analysis. Interior also 

provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of 

Commerce and the Interior, the appropriate congressional committees, 

and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IV.

Anu K. Mittal

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

The objectives for this review were to examine the extent to which the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) (1) coordinate their sea turtle protection activities, 

(2) collect and analyze data on anticipated and actual sea turtle take, 

(3) clearly explain in their biological opinions the rationales they use when 

determining whether a proposed action will jeopardize sea turtles, and 

(4) have developed operational plans to help realize the goals of recovery 

plans for sea turtle species.

We addressed these objectives by taking a variety of steps. To gain a 

national perspective on the services’ (NMFS and FWS) sea turtle 

protection efforts, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, 

such as the Endangered Species Act, as well as relevant agency 

documentation, such as the services’ joint guidance for the act’s section 7 

consultations. We reviewed studies and other documents on sea turtle 

protection issues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, governmentsponsored research, and reports from nongovernmental organizations. 

We also reviewed relevant prior GAO reports. In addition, we interviewed 

NMFS’s and FWS’s national sea turtle coordinators and officials with 

national sea turtle protection responsibilities. We also interviewed a range 

of experts and other individuals—including university researchers; 

representatives of nongovernmental organizations, such as Oceana; and 

representatives from regional fishery management councils1

To examine the services’ sea turtle protection efforts in greater depth, and 

to better understand any regional differences, we selected a 

nonprobability sample of four states—Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, 

and Texas. We selected these states primarily on the basis of the 

existence of sea turtle nesting populations in the state, federal fisheries 

—whom we 

identified as knowledgeable about national sea turtle protection efforts. 

We used the following categories to quantify responses of experts, 

officials, and other individuals knowledgeable about sea turtles: “some” 

refers to 2 to 5 respondents, “several” refers to 6 to 10 respondents, and 

“many” refers to 11 or more respondents. We obtained sea turtle 

information used in the sidebars from NMFS and FWS.

 

1

Regional fishery management councils are composed of federal and state fishery 

management officials as well as active participants in the fishery, among others, and are 

responsible for developing management plans for fisheries in federal waters.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

offshore,2

In addition to the steps outlined above, which were common to all the 

objectives, we also took other steps specific to a particular objective. To 

determine the extent to which the services coordinate their sea turtle 

protection activities, we reviewed the memorandum of understanding 

between NMFS and FWS concerning their sea turtle protection activities. 

To assess the extent to which the services collect and analyze data on 

anticipated and actual sea turtle take, we reviewed information about the 

following databases: NMFS’s Public Consultation Tracking System, 

NMFS’s Authorizations and Permits for Protected Species, FWS’s 

Tracking and Integrated Logging System, and FWS’s Service Permit 

Issuance and Tracking System.

and a relatively high level of anticipated take associated with 

commercial fishing operations. For our selected locations, we analyzed 

documentation from and conducted interviews with a diverse range of 

individuals involved in sea turtle protection, including the services’ 

regional and field office officials; other federal and state agency officials; 

and experts from industry, such as the Southern Shrimp Alliance, and 

from environmental groups, such as the Sea Turtle Conservancy.

To determine the extent to which the services clearly explain in their 

biological opinions the rationale they use when making decisions about 

how much sea turtle take is anticipated to result from reviewed actions, 

we analyzed NMFS and FWS biological opinions for anticipated sea turtle 

take under section 7 of the act. NMFS’s Public Consultation Tracking 

System and FWS’s Tracking and Integrated Logging System databases 

contain a record of section 7 formal consultations for which biological 

opinions have been prepared. To assess the reliability of these 

databases, we conducted electronic testing for missing data and obvious 

errors and interviewed relevant officials. We found the data from the 

databases to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of identifying the 

universe of biological opinions prepared by NMFS and FWS. Specifically, 

we reviewed all 22 of the biological opinions issued from January 1, 2006, 

to January 1, 2011, by NMFS for federal fisheries. Using data from the 

Tracking and Integrated Logging System database, we determined that 

FWS conducted 119 formal section 7 consultations within our time frame

 

2

The term “fishery” means one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for 

purposes of conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of 

geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and economic characteristics. We use the 

term “federal fishery” to mean a fishery managed by the regional councils and NMFS.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

that anticipated sea turtle take. We selected a random sample of 30, 

which allowed us to review a wide range of biological opinions but does 

not allow us to generalize to the entire population of 119 opinions. 

Subsequently, 9 FWS opinions from the random sample of 30 were 

determined to be outside the scope of our review and were not included 

in the analysis for the following reasons: (1) FWS incorrectly categorized

the consultation as a formal consultation when it was an informal 

consultation, (2) the biological opinion is still in draft form, and (3) the 

biological opinion did not involve anticipated take of sea turtles.

We reviewed each biological opinion to determine whether the services 

clearly and transparently explained the rationale for the jeopardy 

determination. We considered a biological opinion to be clear and 

transparent if we determined that there was a direct link to or explanation 

of (1) how information included in the opinion, such as nesting trends or 

population data, was factored into the jeopardy determination or (2) how 

all other sources of take were factored into the jeopardy determination. 

One analyst conducted the initial review. Particular emphasis was placed 

on the review of the following sections in the opinions (although names 

used vary between the services): “Status of the Species,” “Environmental 

Baseline,” “Effects of the Action,” and “Jeopardy 

Determination/Conclusion.” After the initial review, a second GAO analyst 

then reviewed those biological opinions that one analyst determined were 

not clear and transparent to verify that we had correctly categorized the 

opinions and to identify any conflicting findings, which were discussed 

and resolved between the two analysts.

To evaluate the extent to which NMFS and FWS have developed 

operational plans to help achieve the goals of recovery plans for sea 

turtles, we reviewed all the sea turtle recovery plans and other related 

plans developed by the services to guide their sea turtle protection 

activities. Specifically, we reviewed all 11 sea turtle recovery plans and 

2 regional sea turtle plans to determine the extent to which they contained 

elements of effective planning as contained in GAO guidance on the 

Government Performance and Results Act.3

 

3

GAO, Agencies’ Strategic Plans under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional 

Review, 

One analyst conducted the 

initial review. Particular emphasis was placed on review of the “Recovery 

Narrative” and “Implementation Schedule” sections of the recovery plans. 

GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 1997).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

After the initial review, a second GAO analyst then reviewed each plan to 

verify that it had been characterized correctly or to identify any conflicting 

findings, which were discussed and resolved between the two reviewers.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to January 

2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 33 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 34 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 35 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 36 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 37 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 38 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 39 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 40 GAO-12-242 Endangered Sea Turtles

Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Stephen D. Secrist (Assistant 

Director), Jenna Beveridge, Antoinette Capaccio, Ellen W. Chu, Justin 

Fisher, Griffin Glatt, Marietta Revesz, Rebecca Shea, and Lisa Vojta 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361266)
The Government Accountability 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.