GOVERNMENT 

REORGANIZATION

Potential Benefits and 

Drawbacks of Merging 

the National Marine 

Fisheries Service into 

the Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Report to Agency Officials

February 2013

GAO-13-248

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-248, a report to agency 

officials 

February 2013 

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION 

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of Merging the 

National Marine Fisheries Service into the Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Why GAO Did This Study

NMFS and FWS have primary federal 

responsibility for managing fish and 

wildlife. The missions of NMFS and 

FWS have some broad similarities, 

which have prompted long-standing 

questions about whether merging the 

agencies would improve the efficiency 

or effectiveness of their programs. This 

report examines (1) the extent to which 

NMFS and FWS share key 

programmatic responsibilities, 

(2) potential benefits and drawbacks 

identified by agency officials and 

stakeholders of merging NMFS into 

FWS, and (3) potential benefits and 

drawbacks identified by agency 

officials and stakeholders of alternative 

organizational options. To address 

these issues, GAO reviewed agency 

documents and conducted 97 

semistructured interviews with current 

and former agency officials and a wide 

array of the agencies’ stakeholders, 

including organizations representing 

fishing and conservation interests. 

GAO performed a content analysis of 

interview responses.

GAO is not making any 

recommendations. This report presents 

information that Congress and the 

administration could consider in 

determining whether to reorganize 

federal fish and wildlife agencies. GAO

provided a draft of this report for review 

and comment to the Departments of 

Commerce and the Interior. Commerce 

provided technical comments that were 

incorporated, as appropriate. Interior 

did not provide comments.

What GAO Found

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

Service (FWS) share certain key programmatic responsibilities, they also have 

programmatic responsibilities unique to each agency. The agencies largely carry 

out their shared responsibilities independently. For example, both agencies 

implement the Endangered Species Act, but NMFS generally does so for species 

found in marine habitats and FWS for species found in fresh water or on land. 

NMFS and FWS also have responsibilities that are unique to each agency. One 

of NMFS’s unique responsibilities is the federal management of marine fisheries 

and one of FWS’s unique responsibilities is the management of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

Officials and stakeholders identified several potential benefits and drawbacks in a 

possible merger of NMFS into FWS. In many cases, officials and stakeholders 

differed in their views, as illustrated by the following:

• One potential benefit is improving the efficiency of implementing the 

Endangered Species Act. Currently, when a proposed federal project—such 

as building a road—affects species managed by both NMFS and FWS, both 

agencies review the project. Some officials noted that in some cases they 

spend a significant amount of time coordinating their reviews and, in these 

cases, it would be more efficient if a single agency were implementing the 

act. Other officials, however, said that having a single agency implement the 

act may not achieve significant efficiencies, since determining how to best 

minimize effects of a project on multiple species is time-consuming 

regardless of whether one or two agencies are involved. 

• A potential drawback is how a merger might change decision making for 

fisheries management. For example, merging the agencies would shift 

responsibility for approving fishery management plans to the Secretary of the 

Interior from the Secretary of Commerce, and some officials and 

stakeholders believed that the Department of the Interior would emphasize 

conserving fish populations more and consider the economic effects of 

management decisions on fishing communities less than NMFS does. 

Others, however, believed a merger would have little overall effect on fishery 

management. They said that because the framework for managing federal 

fisheries, including the criteria for evaluating fishery management plans, is 

established by statute, transferring approval authority to the Secretary of the 

Interior would not change fishery management decisions.

Officials and stakeholders also identified potential benefits and drawbacks of 

several alternative organizational options that have previously been proposed—

such as moving all of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) into Interior, or creating an overall department of natural resources, or 

establishing NOAA as a stand-alone agency. For example, moving all of NOAA 

into Interior could better integrate natural resource management by bringing 

many aspects of federal land and ocean management under the same 

department, but it could diminish attention to ocean issues since NOAA would be 

competing with other Interior agencies for funding. Overall, officials and 

stakeholders generally said the drawbacks of reorganizing the agencies outweigh 

the benefits.

View GAO-13-248. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Letter 1 

Background 3

NMFS and FWS Share Some Programmatic Responsibilities and 

Differ in Others 8

Officials and Stakeholders Identified Several Potential Benefits and 

Drawbacks in a Possible Merger of NMFS into FWS 20

Officials and Stakeholders Also Identified Several Key Potential 

Benefits and Drawbacks of Alternative Organizational Options 36

Agency Comments 43

Appendix I Former Agency Officials and Stakeholders GAO Interviewed 44

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47

Related GAO Products 48

Tables

Table 1: Key Practices Found in Successful Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations 35

Table 2: Key Features of Interagency Collaborations and Issues to 

Consider When Collaborating 42

Figures

Figure 1: Component Agencies within Commerce and Interior 4

Figure 2: United States Flyways, with Locations of National 

Wildlife Refuges 18

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

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-13-248 Government Reorganization 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

February 14, 2013 

The Honorable Ken Salazar 

Secretary of the Interior 

The Honorable Rebecca Blank 

Acting Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Commerce 

The missions of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have some broad similarities. NMFS—a 

component of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) within the Department of Commerce—manages living marine 

resources, including federal marine fisheries and certain protected species. 

To help accomplish this mission, NMFS implements federal laws, 

conserves and restores coastal and marine habitats, and conducts 

research to support resource management. Similarly, FWS, within the 

Department of the Interior, conserves, protects, and enhances fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats by implementing federal laws, protecting and 

restoring habitats, and conducting research. These similarities have 

prompted long-standing questions about whether merging the agencies 

would improve the efficiency or effectiveness of their programs. Since 

1970, dozens of proposals to reorganize the agencies have been 

suggested by Congress, the President, and presidential advisory councils. 

Against this backdrop, this report examines (1) the extent to which NMFS 

and FWS share key programmatic responsibilities, (2) potential benefits 

and drawbacks identified by agency officials and stakeholders of merging 

NMFS into FWS, and (3) potential benefits and drawbacks identified by 

agency officials and stakeholders of alternative organizational options. 

We prepared this report under the Comptroller General’s authority to 

conduct evaluations on his own initiative. We initiated this work in the 

112th Congress at the request of the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services, and International Security; Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, who did not return to the 

113th Congress. 

To determine the extent to which NMFS and FWS share key 

programmatic activities, we reviewed pertinent laws and agency 

documents, including strategic plans and budget documents. To obtain 

additional information about similarities and differences in the agencies’ 

programs, we interviewed agency leadership and officials responsible for 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

key agency programs. To identify potential benefits and drawbacks of 

merging NMFS into FWS and alternative organizational options, we 

conducted 97 semistructured interviews with current and former agency 

officials and a wide array of the agencies’ stakeholders. Current agency 

officials we interviewed include those with Commerce, Interior, NOAA, 

NMFS, and FWS. To gain a broader perspective on these issues, we 

interviewed Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior and heads of 

NOAA, NMFS, and FWS from each of the two previous administrations. 

We also interviewed a nonprobability sample of the agencies’ 

stakeholders, selected to represent a wide range of interests and different 

types of engagement with the agencies. Stakeholders we interviewed 

included officials from four of the eight regional fishery management 

councils and from state fish and wildlife agencies, as well as from 

nongovernmental organizations representing the fishing industry and 

conservation interests. Appendix I lists the former agency leaders and 

stakeholders we interviewed. The interviewees provided varied 

perspectives on the potential benefits and drawbacks of reorganizing the 

agencies. We performed a content analysis of their responses to our 

interview questions and identified several broad categories of potential 

benefits and drawbacks. Because we used a nonprobability sample, the 

information we obtained from these interviews cannot be generalized to 

all current and former agency officials and stakeholders. As such, we do 

not report the number of respondents who identified specific potential 

benefits and drawbacks; rather we report all issues as identified by 

“some” officials and stakeholders. To determine the alternative 

organizational options to discuss in our interviews with officials and 

stakeholders, we reviewed previous reorganization proposals involving 

NMFS and FWS and identified the options most commonly proposed.

To obtain regional perspectives on these issues, we conducted site visits 

to two areas of the country—New England and the Pacific Northwest—

meeting with agency officials and stakeholders in Boston, Gloucester, and 

Hadley, Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon; and Olympia and Seattle, 

Washington. We selected these locations to provide geographical 

variation and to obtain additional information about some of the key 

challenges facing the agencies. For example, we selected New England 

in part because of recent concerns in that region over NMFS’s role in 

managing marine fisheries and because Atlantic salmon is one of the few 

species for which NMFS and FWS share Endangered Species Act 

responsibilities. We selected the Pacific Northwest in part because the 

presence in many of the region’s watersheds of Pacific salmon listed 

under the Endangered Species Act means that many projects, such as 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

building a road or a dam, may affect species managed by both NMFS and 

FWS and therefore need to be reviewed by both agencies.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 to February 

2013 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.

In fiscal year 2012, NMFS’s budget was approximately $880 million, 

which was about 17 percent of NOAA’s overall budget. NMFS is the thirdlargest component of NOAA by budget, after the National Environmental 

Satellite, Data, and Information Service and the National Weather 

Service. In fiscal year 2012, FWS’s budget was about $1.5 billion, which 

was about 13 percent of Interior’s overall budget. FWS is the third-largest 

component of Interior, after the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. Figure 1 lists the component agencies within Commerce 

and Interior.

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Figure 1: Component Agencies within Commerce and Interior

NMFS is headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, and has over 20 

laboratories, regional offices, and other facilities nationwide. NMFS 

employs a staff of approximately 2,800, including biologists, social 

scientists, economists, and law enforcement officers. FWS is 

headquartered in Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Virginia, and has more 

than 700 management units across the country, including more than 550 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

national wildlife refuges and 80 field stations.1

Federal fish and wildlife programs have been reorganized several times. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service traces its roots back to two entities: the U.S. 

Fish Commission and the Office of Economic Ornithology and 

Mammalogy. The U.S. Fish Commission was established in 1871 as an 

independent agency to address a decline in edible fish. In 1903, it 

became the Bureau of Fisheries and was transferred to the Department of 

Commerce and Labor; it was later retained as part of the Department of 

Commerce. The Office of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy was 

established as part of the Department of Agriculture in 1886 and renamed 

the Bureau of Biological Survey in 1905. Its purposes were, among other 

things, to investigate the food habits, distribution, and migrations of North 

American birds and mammals in relation to agriculture, horticulture, and 

forestry. The Bureau of Fisheries and the Bureau of Biological Survey 

were transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1939

FWS employs 

approximately 9,500 staff across the country, with expertise in such 

disciplines as biology, the social sciences, economics, and law 

enforcement.

2 and combined 

into FWS in 1940;3 both of these moves were achieved by executive 

order. In 1956, Congress established FWS in statute and divided the 

agency into two bureaus: the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and 

the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. NMFS was established in 1970, 

when the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries was transferred to the 

Department of Commerce and made a part of NOAA, a newly established 

agency.4

 

1

FWS’s field stations, called ecological services field offices, generally work on activities 

involving endangered species, migratory birds, and habitat conservation. 

NOAA was created largely in response to the recommendations 

of the Stratton Commission, which called for establishment of a new 

agency to administer the nation’s civilian marine and atmospheric 

programs.

2

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1939, 3 C.F.R. 254 1939, reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 73 

(2006) and in 53 Stat. 1423 (1939).

3

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1940, 3 C.F.R. 1298 (1940), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. 1441 

(2006) and in 54 Stat. 1231 (1940).

4

Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, 3 C.F.R. (1970), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 1557 

(2006) and in 84 Stat. 2090 (1970).
 

Page 6 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Since 1970, Congress, the President, and presidential advisory councils 

have put forth dozens of reorganization proposals involving NMFS, FWS, 

or both. The proposals were generally intended to improve the 

effectiveness or efficiency of natural resource management; none of them 

were implemented. These proposals include:

• Merging NMFS into FWS. At least two bills have been introduced to 

move all or part of NMFS into FWS. For example, in 1993, a bill was 

introduced that would have moved the functions performed by NMFS 

and other NOAA offices to FWS.5 Another bill was introduced 2 years 

later that would have, among other actions, transferred NMFS’s 

science functions to FWS, enforcement functions to the Secretary of 

Transportation, and seafood inspection functions to the Secretary of 

Agriculture.6

• Moving NOAA into Interior. In 2004, a bill was introduced that would 

have moved NOAA from Commerce to Interior.7

• Establishing a department of natural resources. Numerous proposals 

have been put forth to establish a department housing federal natural 

resource agencies within a single department. For example, in 1979, 

the Carter administration proposed creating a new Department of 

Natural Resources, which would have combined a number of 

agencies, including NOAA, the Forest Service, and a number of 

programs from the Department of the Interior.

More recently, as a 

part of a larger initiative to reorganize federal business- and traderelated agencies, the Obama administration in 2012 proposed moving 

NOAA from Commerce to Interior.

8

• Establishing NOAA as a stand-alone agency. Other proposals have 

sought to separate NOAA from Commerce and establish it as a standalone agency. For example, in 1983, a bill was introduced to establish 

 

5

Ocean and Coastal Management Improvement Act of 1993, H.R. 2761, 103rd Cong. 

(1993). 

6

Department of Commerce Dismantling Act, H.R. 1756, 104th Cong. (1995). 

7

Weather and Oceans Resources Realignment Act, H.R. 4368, 108th Cong. (2004). 

8

Office of Management and Budget, President’s Reorganization Project: Report on 

Reorganization Study of Natural Resource Functions (Washington, D.C.: June 1979).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

NOAA as an independent agency.9 In addition, in 2003, the Pew 

Oceans Commission proposed establishing an independent ocean 

agency that would have consolidated many ocean and coastal 

programs—including those currently located in NOAA, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and 

the Army Corps of Engineers.10

• Other proposals to reorganize certain NMFS and FWS 

responsibilities. Other proposals have aimed to reorganize, transfer, 

or consolidate the agencies’ responsibilities in such areas as 

endangered species management. For example, a 1998 bill proposed 

eliminating the Secretary of Commerce’s role in implementing and 

enforcing the Endangered Species Act by transferring Commerce’s 

responsibilities under the act to Interior.11 In addition, another 

proposal, put forth by the American Fisheries Society in 1986, 

suggested creating a federal fishery agency, which would have 

consolidated NMFS’s and FWS’s fishery management functions.12

In addition, proposals have also been made to strengthen NOAA’s 

existing organizational structure. For example, in 2004, the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy recommended creating an organic act for 

NOAA to codify its mission in law.13 Following the commission’s 

recommendations, a bill was introduced proposing to establish an organic 

act for NOAA, but it did not become law.14

Theories of organizational change in the federal government have 

generally had two broad, competing themes, as described in a 2009 GAO 

 

9

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act, H.R. 3381, 98th Cong. 

(1983). 

10Pew Oceans Commission, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change

(Arlington, VA: May 2003).

11Endangered Species Consolidation Act, H.R. 4335, 105th Cong. (1998). 

12American Fisheries Society, “Summary Report and Recommendations on Federal 

Fisheries Responsibilities,” Fisheries, vol. 11, no. 4, July-August 1986.

13U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century

(Washington, D.C.: 2004).

14National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act, H.R. 4607, 108th Cong. 

(2004).
 

Page 8 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

report.15 On the one hand, some public administration experts, holding 

that better coordination occurs among agencies within a single 

department, have recommended reorganizing government to consolidate 

agencies with similar functions under one large department. For example, 

to improve the coordination of domestic security matters in response to 

the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland 

Security was created in 2002, consolidating more than 20 agencies or 

portions of agencies into one new department. On the other hand, 

recognizing that some crosscutting issues may affect the interests of 

multiple agencies, other experts have instead recommended working 

within existing organizational structures to clarify an agency’s mission and 

align program goals and objectives with that mission. We have previously 

reported that reorganizations and consolidations can be complex and 

potentially expensive and that decision makers must balance the benefits 

and costs of any potential consolidation.16

NMFS and FWS share certain key programmatic responsibilities, 

including protecting endangered and threatened species and marine 

mammals, along with conserving and restoring fish and wildlife habitat; 

the agencies are generally responsible for species in different habitat 

types. The agencies also share certain programmatic responsibilities 

related to law enforcement, scientific research, aquaculture, and 

international activities. NMFS and FWS also have programmatic 

responsibilities that are unique to each agency. One of NMFS’s key 

responsibilities is the federal management of marine fisheries, whereas 

one of FWS’s key responsibilities is the management of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Other differences in the agencies’ responsibilities 

include FWS’s role in conserving migratory birds and NMFS’s 

management of a voluntary seafood inspection program.

 

15GAO, Federal Land Management: Observations on a Possible Move of the Forest 

Service into the Department of the Interior, GAO-09-223 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 

2009).

16GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities for Improvement and 

Considerations for Restructuring, GAO-12-454T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012), and 

GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When Evaluating Proposals to 

Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and Management Functions, GAO-12-542 

(Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2012).

NMFS and FWS Share 

Some Programmatic 

Responsibilities and 

Differ in Others
 

Page 9 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

NMFS and FWS both work to protect, conserve, and recover or enhance 

species under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, but the agencies are generally responsible for species in 

different habitat types. The agencies, in a 1974 memorandum of 

understanding, determined that in general NMFS would take 

responsibility under the Endangered Species Act for marine species, and 

FWS would take responsibility for species found in fresh water and on 

land.17 Responsibility for implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

is split as well: NMFS has responsibility for most marine mammals 

(including whales, dolphins, and seals), and FWS is responsible for a few 

species—such as manatee, polar bear, and walrus—that are generally 

found close to land.18

The agencies carry out their responsibilities for implementing these acts 

largely independently from each other, but in some circumstances, the 

agencies have joint responsibility for a species and work together. 

Specifically, the agencies have agreed to jointly implement the 

Endangered Species Act for eight species that spend part of their lives in 

marine waters and part of their lives in fresh water or on land: Atlantic 

salmon, Gulf sturgeon, and six species of sea turtle.

Implementing these laws is an important part of 

each agency’s responsibilities, accounting for roughly one-third of 

NMFS’s fiscal year 2011 budget and roughly one-fifth of FWS’s fiscal year 

2011 budget.

19

 

17Authority for managing species under the Endangered Species Act has been delegated 

by the Secretary of the Interior to the Director of FWS and by the Secretary of Commerce 

to NMFS’s Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.

For each of these 

eight species, the agencies have developed agreements and processes 

to define each agency’s role in implementing the act. In some 

circumstances, the agencies are both involved in making decisions, and 

in others the agencies make decisions independently. For example, a 

statement of cooperation for managing Atlantic salmon outlines that the 

agencies will both participate in making any decisions related to updating 

the status of the species. In contrast, the statement of cooperation also 

18As of December 2012, FWS manages 1,964 plant and animal species under the 

Endangered Species Act and 8 species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS 

is responsible for 88 species under the Endangered Species Act and approximately 117 

species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

19In the 1974 memorandum of understanding, NMFS and FWS agreed that they would 

share jurisdiction for those species that did not clearly fit under the jurisdiction of one 

agency or the other. They agreed to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis.

Protection of Endangered 

and Threatened Species 

and Marine Mammals
 

Page 10 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

lists areas where each agency has its own responsibilities: for example, 

NMFS is responsible for designating critical habitat, and FWS is 

responsible for maintaining fish hatcheries.20

In addition, NMFS and FWS have taken steps to coordinate certain 

aspects of their implementation of the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. For example:

• The agencies are working together to identify differences in the 

agencies’ regulations, policies, and guidance related to the 

Endangered Species Act and are proposing changes to make the 

agencies’ approaches more similar. For example, in August 2012, the 

agencies jointly published a proposed rule, stating that the agencies 

are to release the results of their economic impact analyses—required 

before designating critical habitat for listed species—concurrently with 

releasing the draft critical habitat designation for public comment.21

• Similarly, the agencies are developing a joint policy interpreting 

“significant portion of its range”—a phrase used in the Endangered 

Species Act’s definitions of endangered and threatened species.

Under its current approach, FWS conducts the economic impact 

analysis after it publishes a proposed critical habitat designation for 

public comment and releases the results of the economic analysis 

several months later. NMFS follows a process similar to the one in the 

proposed rule. The revision is intended to align FWS’s approach with 

NMFS’s and to bring greater transparency to the overall process of 

designating critical habitat.

22

 

20Under the Endangered Species Act, NMFS and FWS must generally designate critical 

habitat for any species listed as endangered or threatened. Critical habitat includes (1) 

specific areas occupied by species protected under the act on which are found physical or 

biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 

special management considerations or protection and (2) specific areas that may not be 

occupied by the species at the time it is listed under the act but that are essential for 

conserving the species.

NMFS has never formally interpreted the phrase, and an earlier FWS 

21Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for 

Impact Analyses of Critical Habitat, 77 Fed. Reg. 51,503 (Aug. 24, 2012).

22The act states that a species is endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range; it also states that a threatened species is one that is 

likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

interpretation was rejected by the courts and subsequently withdrawn. 

The two agencies recently issued a draft policy interpreting the phrase 

that, according to the agencies, is consistent with NMFS’s existing 

informal interpretation.23

• NMFS and FWS joined with an association of state fish and wildlife 

agencies in 2010 in forming a federal-state Endangered Species Act 

joint task force, which is examining ways to facilitate effective 

cooperation among NMFS, FWS, and the states. Among other 

actions, this task force has formed a working group that is exploring 

options for improving the consistency of cooperative agreements 

entered into with states by NMFS and FWS.

NMFS and FWS also both undertake a variety of actions to restore and 

conserve habitat for the species they are responsible for. The agencies’ 

efforts often focus on different habitat types, NMFS in marine 

environments and FWS in terrestrial and freshwater environments. 

Nonetheless, according to NMFS and FWS officials, in some cases, such 

as on coastlines and in estuaries, both agencies may have 

responsibilities for the same habitat and may work together to improve 

habitat for species of interest to both agencies. Because much fish and 

wildlife habitat is partly or entirely on land that is privately owned, the 

agencies provide funding and technical assistance to state and local 

governments and to private, nonprofit, and other entities to conserve and 

restore habitat. For example, through its Community-Based Restoration 

Program, NMFS provides approximately $8 million annually to local 

partners to restore coastal and estuarine ecosystems; according to 

agency documents, the program has funded habitat restoration projects in 

26 states and enhanced more than 69,000 acres of habitat. In a series of 

projects under this program, for example, NMFS worked with and 

provided funds to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and a 

local government group to protect and restore over 1,000 acres of habitat 

in Puget Sound for juvenile Pacific salmon. Similarly, FWS’s Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program has funded restoration of wetland and upland 

habitat on nearly 4 million acres of private land; FWS has also helped 

fund state fish and wildlife agencies to protect and restore habitat for 

 

23Draft Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened 

Species,” 76 Fed. Reg. 76,987 (Dec. 9, 2011).

Habitat Conservation and 

Restoration for Fish and 

Wildlife
 

Page 12 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

recreation, such as fishing and hunting. According to FWS, over the past 

75 years, it has provided about $14.3 billion to the states for these 

purposes.

In environments where the agencies’ interests intersect—as they do on 

coastlines and in estuaries—the agencies have sometimes worked 

together to help other entities conserve and protect habitat, according to 

agency officials. NMFS and FWS officials told us that habitat restoration 

projects are often sponsored by state or local agencies and by 

nongovernmental organizations and that if a project is intended to benefit 

habitat of interest to both NMFS and FWS, the sponsoring entity will 

approach both agencies for funding and technical assistance. If both 

agencies are involved, NMFS and FWS officials at the local level may 

work together and with the sponsoring agency to determine each 

agency’s role in a project. This arrangement, officials told us, allows a 

single project to improve habitat for species of interest to both agencies.

NMFS and FWS are also both involved in assessing damages to natural 

resources for which they are responsible.24 For example, habitat can be 

damaged by oil spills and releases of other toxic materials, such as 

mercury and other contaminants. Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Clean 

Water Act; and the Oil Pollution Act, NMFS and FWS conduct a variety of 

activities, including assessing the damage resulting from such releases.25

 

24In addition to NMFS, NOAA’s National Ocean Service and Office of General Counsel 

are also involved in assessing and seeking compensation for damages to natural 

resources. These resources include land, waters, and species within the agencies’ 

respective jurisdictions. 

For example, after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion in April 

2010 and the subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, both NMFS and 

FWS—as well as other federal and state agencies—have been assessing 

damages to natural resources for which they have responsibility. The 

agencies’ initial assessments led to an agreement, in which one of the 

responsible parties agreed to provide $1 billion to fund projects to benefit 

the natural resources damaged by the spill. The agencies are still 

assessing damages from the spill, which could lead to additional 

compensation by responsible parties.

25Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 9601-9675 (2006); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387; and Oil Pollution Act, 33 

U.S.C. §§ 2701-2761 (2006).
 

Page 13 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

In addition, NMFS and FWS are each involved in addressing the effects 

of certain types of development on fish and wildlife habitat. For example, 

hydroelectric dams can affect fish habitat by altering a river’s seasonal 

flow patterns, ability to transport sediment, and temperature. Under the 

Federal Power Act, the agencies issue license conditions to protect 

federal lands and prescriptions to assist fish passage on these projects.26

These provisions include requirements for maintaining minimum stream 

flows or spilling water over dams during certain times of the year to avoid 

harm to young fish by the dams’ turbines. In addition, many federal 

development projects—such as building a road or a dam—can affect 

habitat for fish and wildlife species protected under the Endangered 

Species Act. In such cases, federal agencies carrying out such projects 

must consult with NMFS, FWS, or both; NMFS and/or FWS may in turn 

identify measures that the federal agencies can take to mitigate these 

effects. Similarly, federal projects can also affect habitat important to 

sustaining fisheries. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal agencies 

must consult with NMFS on actions that may adversely affect “essential 

fish habitat”—habitat necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or 

growing to maturity—and NMFS must recommend measures that can be 

taken by federal agencies to conserve the habitat.27 For example, if the 

Army Corps of Engineers proposed dredging a river channel to improve 

navigation, NMFS would review the project to determine if it would have a 

negative impact on designated essential fish habitat and, if so, would 

recommend steps—such as a buffer area around certain areas or 

restricting dredging activities.

NMFS and FWS both have law enforcement programs to help protect the 

resources under each agency’s jurisdiction. For example, NMFS enforces 

fishery regulations because one of that agency’s key programmatic 

responsibilities is federal management of marine fisheries, whereas FWS 

enforces migratory bird hunting regulations because conservation of 

migratory birds and their habitats is one of its key responsibilities. FWS 

also enforces federal laws on the millions of acres of federal lands the 

agency is responsible for managing. In some cases, the two agencies 

enforce the same laws, such as the Endangered Species Act. In such 

cases, the agencies enforce these laws as they apply to the species each 

 

2616 U.S.C. §§ 791-830 (2006).

2716 U.S.C. §§ 1802(10) and 1855(b) (2006); 50 C.F.R. § 600.920 (2012). 

Law Enforcement
 

Page 14 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

is responsible for, which has led to NMFS’s enforcing the act predominantly 

in marine environments and FWS in terrestrial and freshwater 

environments. FWS also inspects commercial cargo shipments and 

passengers entering the United States, stationing officers at selected ports 

and along the border with Canada and Mexico to ensure compliance with 

laws and treaties regarding wildlife trade; FWS and NMFS officials told us 

that FWS notifies NMFS when these inspections identify issues related to 

species of concern to NMFS. NMFS officials told us that the agency does 

not have a dedicated border presence but that its officers routinely work 

with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to inspect cargo and passengers 

entering the United States to enforce compliance with domestic laws and 

international treaties regarding seafood and wildlife trade for species within 

the scope of agency jurisdiction.

NMFS and FWS both conduct scientific research to develop information 

needed to help the agencies manage many of their programs. For 

example, among other areas of research, NMFS collects data on the 

cumulative weight of species caught in marine fisheries in different 

regions of the country and develops scientific models to estimate the 

health of fish populations, information NMFS uses to make decisions 

about how to manage the fisheries. Similarly, among FWS’s research 

activities are efforts to collect and analyze data on the health of migratory 

bird populations, information it uses to manage hunting.

NMFS’s science program is much larger than FWS’s. NMFS officials 

estimated the agency spent approximately $298 million on scientific 

activities in fiscal year 2011, almost one-third of its total budget; in 

contrast, FWS officials estimated the agency spent approximately $62 

million on scientific activities in fiscal year 2011, about 4 percent of the 

agency’s budget.28

 

28NMFS and FWS officials estimated the amount their respective agency spent on 

scientific research because research is not designated as a separate budgetary line item. 

FWS’s estimate includes approximately $15 million FWS used to acquire scientific 

information from the U.S. Geological Survey, a separate agency within Interior that also 

conducts science that supports FWS management.

The agencies also have structured their scientific 

research programs differently. NMFS has established an Office of 

Science and Technology to oversee its science program and six regional 

science centers, which conduct research to support NMFS’s management 

of fisheries and other marine resources. FWS has integrated its scientific 

Scientific Research
 

Page 15 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

research into various programmatic activities, such as the endangered 

species and migratory bird programs, rather than having a separate 

science research program.

NMFS and FWS both have various responsibilities related to aquaculture 

operations, such as fish and shellfish farms, although other agencies also 

play an important role. For example, aquaculture in the United States 

generally occurs in nearshore marine waters or onshore (such as in 

ponds or tanks), under the jurisdiction of individual states. Nevertheless, 

aquaculture operations may also need to obtain federal permits: 

operations that place structures in navigable waters may need to obtain 

permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, and operations that discharge 

pollutants into waters of the United States may need to obtain permits 

from the Environmental Protection Agency.29 NMFS and FWS both 

consult with the state and federal agencies involved in permitting 

aquaculture facilities to reduce the effect these facilities have on the fish 

populations the agencies are responsible for managing. NMFS has a 

more direct role in relation to offshore marine aquaculture—managing 

such activities in federal waters, in consultation with stakeholders, under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NOAA also reports that it is working with 

stakeholders to develop regulations for aquaculture in federal waters.30

Both agencies also conduct or fund research to develop and improve 

techniques and equipment that can help advance the aquaculture 

industry. FWS has a substantial hatchery program as well, operating 72 

national fish hatcheries to help, among other purposes, ensure the 

recovery of threatened or endangered species; restore native fish stocks; 

and mitigate the effects of federal water development projects, such as 

hydroelectric dams and irrigation projects. NMFS helps fund some of 

these hatcheries.31

 

29Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency may authorize states 

to issue permits under the act; thus, aquaculture operations may need to obtain these 

permits from state agencies.

30Federal waters generally extend from 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore, an area known as 

the Exclusive Economic Zone.

31In recent years, NMFS has provided approximately $16 million annually under the 

Mitchell Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 755-757 (2006)) to fund hatcheries and other projects, such as 

irrigation diversion screens, to partially compensate for fish and habitat losses caused by 

construction of federal dams on the Columbia River. In fiscal year 2012, more than

$3 million of these funds supported FWS hatchery programs.

Aquaculture
 

Page 16 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

NMFS and FWS both undertake a variety of international activities related 

to the species they manage. Both agencies work with the Department of 

State and other federal agencies to administer international treaties 

related to fish and wildlife. For example, FWS participates in international 

discussions determining which species warrant protection under the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species,32 an 

international agreement intended to ensure that international trade in 

certain plants and animals does not threaten their survival. Similarly, 

NMFS participates in international discussions—for example, through the 

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas—related 

to the conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks. Both 

agencies also assist other countries, for example by providing technical 

expertise or funding for projects to protect or enhance wildlife and habitat.

One of the key differences between the agencies is that NMFS is the 

principal federal agency managing commercial and recreational marine 

fisheries in federal waters, whereas FWS’s role in these fisheries is 

primarily advisory. Managing these fisheries is a major component of 

NMFS’s programmatic responsibilities, constituting approximately onefifth of its annual budget. The Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes the 

framework for managing fisheries in federal waters. Under the act, NMFS 

and eight regional fishery management councils play critical roles in 

fishery management. NMFS is a voting member on each fishery 

management council. NMFS also furnishes data and scientific analyses 

critical to the fishery management councils’ decision making. For 

example, NMFS’s regional science centers assess the health of various 

fish stocks, information the councils use in setting catch limits. NMFS also 

has seats on a number of committees established by the councils to 

examine specific topics, such as scientific information or management of 

particular fishery sectors. Each fishery management council is 

responsible for developing a fishery management plan for each fishery in 

its region that requires conservation and management.33

 

32According to NMFS, the agency works with FWS to develop the U.S. position on species 

protected under the convention for which NMFS has management responsibilities.

The Secretary of 

Commerce reviews the plans to determine if they comply with Magnuson33The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines fishery as “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 and any fishing for such stocks.” 

International Activities

Marine Fisheries
 

Page 17 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Stevens Act requirements and other applicable law, and, if so, approves 

them. In contrast, FWS plays primarily an advisory role in federal fishery 

management. A nonvoting member on the regional fishery management 

councils, FWS advises the councils on issues such as reducing the 

impact of fisheries on migratory birds and certain marine mammals. For 

some of the councils, FWS also sits on advisory committees, such as the 

habitat committee, which makes recommendations to the council on how 

to resolve habitat issues.

NMFS and FWS are also involved in supporting certain state coastal 

fishery programs. Specifically, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission consists mostly of representatives of the 15 Atlantic coast 

states, but NMFS and FWS are also voting members. The commission 

develops and approves fishery management plans—similar to those 

developed by the regional councils for federal fisheries—for stocks that 

move, or are broadly distributed, within the waters of two or more states 

or waters under both federal and state jurisdiction.

Another key difference between NMFS and FWS is that FWS manages 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, whereas NMFS generally does not 

have land management responsibilities. FWS has jurisdiction over 

approximately 150 million acres of fish and wildlife habitat through its 

management of more than 550 national wildlife refuges in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, whose management is one of the agency’s core 

responsibilities and constitutes approximately one-third of its annual 

budget. Although NMFS also has responsibilities related to habitat, it 

generally does not directly manage lands or waters specifically for that 

purpose. The primary purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 

to provide for the conservation; management; and, where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. The refuge 

system includes lands and waters representing a full range of habitat 

types, including wetlands, grasslands, forests, and coastal and marine 

areas. These areas provide habitat for hundreds of species of birds, 

mammals, and fish, including more than 250 species listed as threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. For example, more 

than 200 wildlife refuges have been established specifically to protect 

breeding or wintering habitat for migratory birds, with many refuges 

strategically located along migratory bird corridors (known as “flyways”) to 

offer resting and feeding areas to long-distance migrants (see fig. 2). In 

addition, approximately 180 wildlife refuges protect sensitive oceanic, 

coastal, and estuarine areas that are critical nurseries for many fisheries.

National Wildlife Refuge 

System
 

Page 18 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Figure 2: United States Flyways, with Locations of National Wildlife Refuges
 

Page 19 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

In addition to stewardship over the national wildlife refuges, the explicit

conservation of migratory birds and their habitats is another key FWS 

responsibility. The agency monitors and assesses the health of migratory 

bird populations and evaluates the effects of human and environmental 

factors on bird population dynamics and distribution. Many migratory birds 

are hunted, and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, FWS is responsible 

for establishing the length of hunting seasons and limits on the number of 

birds hunters may take.34 FWS also implements other laws pertaining to 

migratory birds, including the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, and the Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation Improvement Act of 2000.

35

Although conserving migratory birds is a key FWS responsibility, NMFS 

also has a responsibility to reduce the effect of its management actions, 

in particular those related to commercial fisheries, on migratory bird 

populations. Specifically, because the actions of many federal agencies 

can affect migratory bird populations, Executive Order 13186 directs all 

federal agencies that take actions that have, or are likely to have, a 

measurable negative effect on migratory birds to develop and implement 

a memorandum of understanding with FWS to promote the conservation 

of migratory bird populations.

In addition, FWS provides 

information to help businesses avert or minimize the impacts on migratory 

birds of communication towers, wind turbines, and fishing.

36

 

3416 U.S.C. §§ 703-719c (2006).

NMFS and FWS described their 

respective responsibilities for migratory birds in a June 2012 

memorandum of understanding. For example, one of NMFS’s 

responsibilities is to integrate principles for migratory bird conservation 

into its fisheries and other management plans and, to the extent 

practicable, to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of its actions on 

migratory birds. One of FWS’s responsibilities is to inform NMFS and the 

regional fishery management councils of the potential effects that fishery 

practices may have on migratory birds and of steps to reduce those 

effects. The 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act also direct 

NMFS to establish a program to reduce the number of seabirds 

accidentally caught in fishing equipment.

3516 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2912 (2006), 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d (2006), and 16 U.S.C. §§ 6101-

6109 (2006).

36Exec. Order No. 13,186, 66 Fed. Reg. 3,853 (Jan. 17, 2001).

Migratory Birds
 

Page 20 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Another difference between NMFS and FWS is that NMFS manages a 

voluntary seafood inspection program, under which fishing vessels and 

processors can pay the agency to inspect seafood products and 

processing facilities. Through this program, NMFS inspects the sanitation 

of participating vessels and facilities, evaluates the quality and condition 

of seafood products, and certifies that participating vessels and facilities 

comply with all applicable food regulations.37 For example, processors 

can request that NMFS inspect processed seafood products—such as 

breaded fish sticks—to certify that they contain a specified amount of 

seafood. This inspection program also facilitates international trade. For 

example, NMFS can certify that seafood products exported from the 

United States meet the importing country’s requirements and can offer 

inspection services to foreign processors and importers to help them 

meet U.S. regulations and requirements, reducing the likelihood of trade 

shipments being delayed due to questions about their compliance with 

import requirements. According to a senior program official, 

approximately 300 facilities contracted with NMFS for seafood inspection 

services and paid approximately $26 million for them in fiscal year 2012.

The main potential benefits of merging NMFS into FWS that agency 

officials and stakeholders identified include improving the effectiveness 

and efficiency of implementing the Endangered Species Act and Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, better integrating natural resource management, 

improving habitat conservation and law enforcement programs, and 

realizing cost savings. Officials and stakeholders also cited potential 

drawbacks, including the potential for a merger to disrupt marine fisheries 

management, sever existing connections between NMFS and other 

NOAA offices, result in transition costs, and broadly disrupt agency 

programs in the short term. In many cases, however, officials and 

stakeholders differed in their views, both on whether they saw a potential 

merger outcome as a benefit or a drawback and on the likelihood and 

importance of that outcome. Previous GAO work has identified a number 

of key management practices—including ensuring that top leadership 

drives a transformation and establishing clear goals to guide the 

transformation—that could help mitigate the program disruptions and 

transition costs that inevitably accompany reorganization.

 

37NMFS does not have oversight responsibility for ensuring the safety of domestic or 

imported seafood. This responsibility lies with the Food and Drug Administration.

Fee-for-Service Seafood 

Inspection

Officials and 

Stakeholders 

Identified Several 

Potential Benefits and 

Drawbacks in a 

Possible Merger of 

NMFS into FWS
 

Page 21 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

A key potential benefit of merging the agencies, some officials and 

stakeholders said, is that doing so could improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the agencies’ implementation of the Endangered Species 

Act. These officials and stakeholders identified several ways that merging 

the agencies could yield such possible benefits, including the following:

• Better protection for jointly managed threatened and endangered 

species. According to agency officials, joint management of certain 

species by NMFS and FWS has in some cases not been as effective 

as it might be because neither agency has sole responsibility for the 

overall well-being of the species in question. For example, the 

agencies have split their responsibilities for managing sea turtles so 

that NMFS is responsible for the animals while they are in the marine 

environment, and FWS is responsible for them on land. As we 

reported in 2012,38 one effect of this division is that the agencies 

make some decisions affecting turtles, such as authorizing the 

harassment, harming, or killing of turtles (known as take), without 

consistently sharing information about their decisions.39

• Less need for interagency coordination. Agency officials also noted 

that in some cases they currently spend a significant amount of time 

coordinating actions between the two agencies, and in such cases, it 

could be more efficient if a single agency were implementing the act. 

For example, for the eight species NMFS and FWS manage jointly 

under the Endangered Species Act, program officials told us, it takes 

longer to make some decisions regarding species management 

because both agencies need to agree. Moreover, if the two agencies 

According to 

sea turtle experts interviewed for that report, each agency may 

therefore be authorizing sea turtle take without knowing how much its 

counterpart has authorized, and the combined allowance may be 

harming threatened or endangered sea turtles and delaying their 

recovery. According to a former FWS director, it is important for one 

agency to have responsibility for monitoring cumulative impacts on 

species to effectively conserve and protect them under the act.

 

38GAO, Endangered Sea Turtles: Better Coordination, Data Collection, and Planning 

Could Improve Federal Protection and Recovery Efforts, GAO-12-242 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 31, 2012).

39The Endangered Species Act generally prohibits the “take” of endangered species, 

where take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (2006). 

Potential to Improve 

Implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act
 

Page 22 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

disagree on a course of action, no single decision maker can hear 

both sides and ultimately make a choice, which, officials said, can

lead to months of high-level negotiations to resolve. Similarly, 

program officials told us it was important that they coordinate the 

agencies’ reviews of projects affecting multiple species, such as 

building a road or dam, where one or more of the species are 

managed by NMFS and the other(s) by FWS.40

• Streamlined process for the public. Some officials and stakeholders 

told us that having a single agency implementing the Endangered 

Species Act could also be more efficient and simpler for the public. 

Aquaculture and timber industry stakeholders we spoke with told us 

they are frustrated by the requirement to consult separately with each 

agency if a project affects species managed by both agencies. Some 

senior agency officials and stakeholders said a significant potential 

benefit of merging NMFS into FWS is that it could create “one-stop 

shopping,” where permittees could go to one agency for all their 

species-related approvals, simplifying and streamlining the permitting 

process.

These reviews may 

direct the project sponsor to take specified measures to mitigate the 

impact of the project on listed species. Some stakeholders told us that 

when the agencies do not work together when developing these 

mitigation requirements, NMFS and FWS may provide project 

sponsors with conflicting requirements for their projects, requiring the 

sponsors to go back to the agencies so they can resolve the conflict. 

NMFS and FWS officials told us they often work with each other to 

ensure that their mitigation measures do not conflict, but they do not 

always do so. As a senior NMFS official explained, the agencies may 

not coordinate with each other when they put a higher priority on 

meeting deadlines for completing their own reviews over such 

coordination.

Some officials and stakeholders also noted that merging the agencies 

would likely lead to greater consistency in how the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act were implemented, which could 

help ensure that the agencies apply protections under the acts similarly. 

Officials and stakeholders identified several instances where NMFS and 

FWS had adopted different regulations, policies, and guidance, which 

 

40The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with FWS, NMFS, or 

both agencies when their actions may affect listed species or critical habitat.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

may have led to species’ receiving different levels of protection based on 

which agency had jurisdiction over that species, rather than the species’ 

needs. For example:

• FWS has adopted a default rule under the Endangered Species Act 

that automatically extends certain protections to species listed as 

threatened that are afforded to species listed as endangered, unless 

the agency decides otherwise. In contrast, NMFS decides whether to 

extend such protections on a case-by-case basis.41

• NMFS and FWS have taken different approaches to agreements they 

sign with states to cooperatively manage species. In accordance with 

the Endangered Species Act, the agencies can sign cooperative 

agreements with states that have programs to help conserve 

threatened and endangered species.

As a result, 

threatened species managed by FWS automatically receive 

protections—such as requiring a permit to take the species for 

research and conservation purposes—not automatically received by 

threatened species managed by NMFS. For example, a senior NMFS 

official told us, NMFS often allows the taking of threatened species for 

these purposes without a permit. Some stakeholders said they believe 

FWS’s approach leads to an “overregulation” of threatened species 

because these species may be receiving more protections than are 

biologically necessary. A senior FWS official told us the agency 

agrees with this assessment for some species and that instead of 

automatically providing threatened species with the same level of 

protection as endangered species, it plans to take the individual 

needs of each threatened species into account when determining the 

appropriate level of protection, an approach more in line with NMFS’s.

42

 

41The Endangered Species Act allows the agencies to extend some required protections 

for endangered species to threatened species.

FWS’s agreements generally 

allow state employees to take endangered species without a permit 

for certain conservation activities they perform in their official duties, 

such as conducting research. NMFS’s state agreements, however, do 

not allow state employees to take endangered species without 

obtaining approval. According to a senior NMFS official, NMFS’s 

42Under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act, FWS and NMFS are authorized to 

enter into cooperative agreements with states that establish and maintain an “adequate 

and active” program for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

approach offers a higher level of protection to species because each 

instance of take is reviewed and subject to approval or rejection.

• NMFS and FWS authorize take of marine mammals differently in 

certain circumstances under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

According to FWS officials, the agency tends to authorize incidental 

take—take that is unintentional but expected—of marine mammals 

over a 5-year period for some activities, most notably for oil and gas 

drilling in the Arctic, whereas NMFS officials said they authorize take 

for similar activities in the Arctic annually.43

Some officials and stakeholders, however, told us that they did not 

believe that merging the agencies would substantially improve the 

agencies’ implementation of the two acts. These officials and 

stakeholders noted that eliminating interagency coordination when 

evaluating the impact of a proposed project on multiple species may not 

achieve significant efficiencies. For example, agency officials and 

stakeholders explained that many projects in the Pacific Northwest affect 

multiple listed species—including salmon, bull trout, and spotted owls—

and determining how to best minimize effects of a project on each of 

these species and their different habitats is time-consuming regardless of 

whether one or two agencies is involved. Moreover, some agency officials 

said they did not believe a merger would make the joint management of 

species more effective. They said that having two agencies implement the 

FWS officials told us that 

they believe authorizing these oil and gas activities over a 5-year 

period provides a more comprehensive picture of the take that may 

occur of the mammals FWS manages in the area, including polar 

bears and walruses. These officials also noted that the 5-year 

approach is more efficient. NMFS officials told us they agreed with 

this assessment, but they said that authorizing take annually also has 

advantages: it allows NMFS to conduct a more detailed analysis of 

the activities expected to affect the marine mammals it manages—

primarily whales, dolphins, and seals—in a specific location in a given 

year. They said that this level of detail is especially important in the 

Arctic, where offshore oil and gas exploration is not limited to a single 

area and varies significantly from year to year.

 

43Under the act, agency officials may, at the request of citizens seeking to engage in an 

activity that may result in the incidental take of a marine mammal, issue one of two types 

of authorization for take that meets certain criteria: (1) a 5-year authorization for any type 

of incidental take if the take meets certain criteria or (2) a 1-year authorization limited to 

incidental harassment.
 

Page 25 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Endangered Species Act provides certain benefits that could be lost if the 

agencies merged, such as bringing in different perspectives and avoiding 

“group think” when considering major decisions.

Officials and stakeholders told us that another potential benefit of merging 

NMFS into FWS could be better integrated management of natural 

resources. According to these officials and stakeholders, placing 

responsibility in a single agency for considering all species living in the 

interconnected environments from the mountains to the sea may be 

preferable to splitting responsibility for species between two agencies 

according to which habitats the species occupy. Some officials and 

stakeholders explained that a benefit of an integrated fish and wildlife 

management agency would be that it could better address large-scale 

environmental challenges, such as climate change, that are likely to affect 

many ecosystems across the country. Officials and stakeholders provided 

some examples of how management of natural resources could be better 

integrated with a merger, including the following:

• Facilitating an ecosystem approach to natural resource management.

Some agency officials and stakeholders said that a merger could help 

managers take more of an ecosystem approach and consider the 

impact of activities on the health of many species and their habitats 

across a landscape, instead of considering only those species under 

their agency’s jurisdiction. Some officials cited FWS’s efforts to 

develop landscape conservation cooperatives—public-private 

partnerships that promote conservation planning at a landscape 

scale—as one initiative that could be expanded to more effectively 

include marine and shoreline habitats. One senior FWS official 

explained that FWS staff struggle with including these habitats in the 

cooperatives because responsibility for many of the species found 

there lies with NMFS. Although NMFS collaborates with FWS in some 

of these cooperatives, this official said he believes it would be more 

efficient to manage a comprehensive cooperative under one agency.

• Promoting a more holistic approach to managing ocean resources.

Interior and FWS officials explained that bringing NMFS to Interior 

could help the government manage ocean resources more holistically. 

For example, Interior, through its Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, manages the exploration and development of offshore 

mineral resources but, according to a senior Interior official, does not 

manage many of the species affected by offshore oil, gas, and wind 

energy development. This official told us that having the agencies 

Potential to Better 

Integrate Natural Resource 

Management
 

Page 26 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

responsible for managing both living and mineral marine resources all 

located within Interior could help the department better mitigate the 

effects of offshore development. Similarly, some FWS officials noted, 

FWS has jurisdiction over migratory seabirds but does not manage 

marine fisheries. Yet practices some of these fisheries employ—

including longline fishing—can harm these birds. FWS works with 

NMFS and the regional fishery management councils to reduce these 

impacts, but, the officials said, having one agency responsible for 

protecting migratory birds and managing fisheries could better ensure 

that the birds’ needs are considered when making management 

decisions for fisheries.

Some officials and stakeholders told us, however, that they do not believe 

that integrating the agencies would be beneficial. Some stakeholders said 

that having NMFS responsible for living marine resources and Interior 

responsible for offshore energy development gives NMFS an independent 

voice in assessing the impacts of energy development on living 

resources. Some stakeholders said NMFS’s location in Commerce means 

that if a proposed project would harm living marine resources, NMFS can 

seek to mitigate the project’s effects, or even oppose the project, more 

easily than if the agency were part of Interior.

Officials and stakeholders told us that merging NMFS into FWS could 

help the agencies improve how they prioritize and coordinate their habitat 

conservation and restoration efforts, which could help ensure that the 

agencies focus their limited resources on the projects that provide the 

most benefits. NMFS and FWS habitat program officials told us that 

although the agencies coordinate their work in several forums, the 

agencies generally work independently in identifying, selecting, and 

undertaking habitat projects.44 Program officials said that by not working 

together in habitat types of common interest, such as estuaries and 

coastlines, the agencies have missed opportunities to identify potential 

habitat conservation and restoration projects that would provide more 

overall benefits to fish and wildlife species.

 

44Forums where NMFS and FWS work together to conserve and restore habitat include 

the National Fish Habitat Partnership and the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council.

Potential to Improve 

Habitat Conservation 

Programs
 

Page 27 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Some officials and stakeholders also said that merging NMFS into FWS 

could improve the effectiveness of the agencies’ law enforcement 

programs. Specifically, officials and stakeholders said that merging the 

agencies’ law enforcement programs, which would bring a larger number 

of law enforcement officers together under a single agency, could make it 

easier to mobilize officers to conduct long-term investigations. They noted 

that some complex investigations may occupy one or more officers for 

many weeks or months and that it can be difficult to assign officers to 

such investigations if the agency has a small number of officers in a 

particular geographic area. Some officials and stakeholders also noted 

that having a larger number of officers under a single management 

structure could improve officer safety by making it easier to mobilize 

additional officers to provide backup when making arrests or serving 

warrants.

Some other officials and stakeholders, however, questioned the extent to 

which a merger would benefit the agencies’ law enforcement programs. 

These officials and stakeholders said that both agencies’ law enforcement 

programs are understaffed, given their responsibilities, and that any 

additional enforcement resources a merger would enable the agencies to 

direct at certain tasks would be accompanied by directing fewer 

resources at other tasks. Some officials and stakeholders also noted that 

although the agencies’ law enforcement programs have many similarities, 

they also have important differences, which limit the potential benefits of 

merging the programs. A major enforcement responsibility for NMFS, for 

example, is enforcing fisheries management regulations adopted under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Officials and stakeholders said that these 

regulations can be very complex and that it makes sense to have a 

number of officers dedicated primarily to enforcing them, rather than 

training all officers on the complexities. Similarly, FWS—in addition to 

enforcing a variety of federal laws governing the lands and resources in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System—also works to ensure visitor safety 

on national wildlife refuges. Given this variety, as well as the geographical 

isolation of many refuges, officials and stakeholders said that it makes 

sense to dedicate a number of officers primarily to protecting refuges.

Cost savings were also cited as a potential benefit of a merger by some 

officials and stakeholders. Some of these officials and stakeholders said 

that likely sources for savings include consolidating the agencies’ 

administrative and support functions—such as budgeting, finance, and 

human capital—and reducing mid- and high-level management positions, 

such as program managers, that would potentially be made redundant. 

Potential to Improve Law 

Enforcement Programs

Potential to Realize Cost 

Savings
 

Page 28 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Nevertheless, given the lack of detail about exactly how the agencies 

would be merged, none of the officials we spoke with offered a concrete 

estimate of potential cost savings.

Many officials and stakeholders we interviewed, however, told us they 

believed that few, if any, opportunities exist for significant cost savings. A 

major reason cited was that although NMFS and FWS have some similar 

programmatic responsibilities, the agencies’ execution of these 

responsibilities overlaps little, because the agencies mostly work in 

different habitat types. Simply merging the agencies, therefore, would not 

consolidate their activities enough to actually reduce costs. Moreover, 

some officials and stakeholders told us they believe that the agencies are 

already understaffed and that no obvious opportunities are available to 

reduce staffing levels without also reducing their on-the-ground activities. 

Some stakeholders also cautioned that, in their experiences, both 

government and private-sector proposals to consolidate organizations 

overestimate the potential long-term cost savings, which often do not 

materialize. For example, one former state wildlife agency director noted 

that the proposal for the merger of his state’s fish and wildlife agencies 

projected cost savings that did not ultimately occur.

A key potential drawback of merging the agencies, some officials and 

stakeholders said, is the disruption it could cause to fisheries 

management, particularly for commercial fisheries. Officials and 

stakeholders cited a number of ways in which merging NMFS into FWS 

could potentially disrupt fisheries management, including the following:

• Disrupting NMFS’s work with regional fishery management councils. 

NMFS conducts numerous stock assessments and other research 

that provide key information about the size of fish stocks, among other 

topics, which the regional councils consider in determining the level of 

catch to be authorized in a fishery management plan. Some officials 

and stakeholders said that merging the agencies could interrupt 

NMFS’s ability to provide the needed information. One regional fishery 

management council member said that even a 1-year disruption in 

approving fishery management plans would cause problems for the 

industry.

• Reducing access to scientific resources needed to manage fisheries. 

NMFS’s six regional science centers do much of the research and 

data collection the agency and fishery management councils use in 

managing fisheries. Officials and stakeholders noted that Interior in 

Potential to Disrupt 

Fisheries Management
 

Page 29 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

the 1990s consolidated many of its scientific capabilities into a 

separate agency, the U.S. Geological Survey. These officials 

expressed concern that if NMFS and FWS merged, Interior could 

decide to move NMFS’s science centers into the Geological Survey 

too, which they believed could affect the continued availability of basic 

fisheries management data. Specifically, fisheries managers need 

scientific data that directly inform management decisions, such as 

stock assessments to establish catch levels. Officials and 

stakeholders were concerned that if NMFS’s science centers were 

moved to the Geological Survey, the scientists would be in a separate 

organization and further removed from fisheries managers, which 

could make it more difficult for managers to obtain the data they need.

• Changing decision-making responsibilities. Some officials and 

stakeholders, including some stakeholders associated with the 

commercial fishing industry, said that merging NMFS into FWS would 

shift responsibility for approving fishery management plans to the 

Secretary of the Interior rather than the Secretary of Commerce, 

which they said could change how the federal government balances 

conservation and economic factors in managing fisheries. Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, fishery management plans are to “take into 

account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities” to 

provide for the sustained participation of such communities and, to the 

extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on those 

communities.45

• Causing further industry disruptions. Officials from nongovernmental 

conservation organizations emphasized that the fishing industry has 

recently undergone several important changes and that merging the 

agencies now could cause further disruptions. For example, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended in 2006 to, among other things, 

require that fishery management plans establish a mechanism for 

setting annual catch limits, require regional fishery management 

councils to implement plans to end overfishing immediately, and 

authorize a type of “catch share” program that restricts access to a 

The act, however, does not define what is meant by 

the phrase “take into account.” Officials and stakeholders said they 

believed that Interior could emphasize conserving fish populations 

more and consider the economic effects of management decisions on 

fishing communities less than NMFS does.

 

4516 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(8) (2006).
 

Page 30 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

fishery.46

In contrast, some officials and stakeholders said they believed merging 

NMFS into FWS could benefit fishery management in certain ways, and 

others said they believed a merger would have little overall effect on 

fishery management. Regarding potential benefits to fishery 

management, some stakeholders said that, in balancing conservation and 

economic interests, NMFS has tended to favor economic interests, 

leading to higher catch levels, which have depleted stocks and, ultimately, 

left fewer fish available for harvest. These stakeholders suggested that 

putting greater emphasis on conserving fish populations, which they 

believed could occur if NMFS moved to Interior, would be a positive step. 

In addition, some stakeholders said that a merger could lead to a better 

balance between commercial and recreational fishing interests. These 

stakeholders said that NMFS, perhaps because of its position in 

Commerce, favors commercial over recreational fishing interests and that 

FWS has a reputation for working well with recreational interests. Officials 

and stakeholders who said they believed a merger would have little effect 

on fishery management pointed out that the staff currently working on 

fisheries management issues would also work on them if the agencies 

merged. They also said that because the framework for managing federal 

fisheries, including the criteria for evaluating fishery management plans, 

is established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, transferring approval 

These steps are intended to both maintain healthy fish 

populations and strengthen the industry. Conservation stakeholders 

told us these steps are important to the long-term health of both 

marine ecosystems and the fishing industry but recognized that the 

changes—by reducing catch levels in some fisheries and raising 

concerns about the equity of catch allocations in others—have 

disrupted the industry in the short term. These stakeholders said that 

they expect the industry, as well as fish populations, to start benefiting 

soon from the changes and that a disruption caused by merging the 

agencies now could delay realizing those benefits.

 

46According to NMFS, “catch share” is a general term for several fishery management 

strategies that allocate a specific portion of the total allowable catch to individuals, 

cooperatives, communities, or other entities. By allocating allowable fish catch ahead of 

time, catch shares are intended to provide social and economic benefits to the industry, 

for example, by improving safety, since captains would feel less compelled to fish during 

dangerous weather; increasing the value of the catch, by reducing the likelihood that a 

large supply of fish will hit the market at one time; and reducing costs, by reducing the 

incentive to overinvest in new equipment, since captains would not be competing in a 

“race for fish,” where they feel they need the best equipment to gain advantage over other 

captains.
 

Page 31 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

authority to the Secretary of the Interior would not change fishery 

management decisions.

Another key potential drawback cited by some officials and stakeholders 

is that a merger of NMFS and FWS could sever the connections between 

NMFS and other NOAA offices. NMFS relies on a variety of services 

performed by other offices within NOAA to conduct its work. Alternative 

methods for obtaining those services could be developed, but moving 

NMFS out of NOAA might affect the efficiency or effectiveness of 

obtaining them, according to officials and stakeholders. Important 

connections between NMFS and other parts of NOAA highlighted by 

stakeholders include the following:

• Legal services. NOAA provides legal services to NMFS and the other 

NOAA offices through its Office of General Counsel. Officials and 

stakeholders pointed to the important role played by that office in 

reviewing fishery management plans to ensure they comply with 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and were concerned that 

moving NMFS out of NOAA could disrupt the review process. If NMFS 

merged with FWS, its legal services would be provided by Interior’s 

Office of the Solicitor, which does not have experience with the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Some officials noted, 

however, that some of NOAA’s lawyers with fishery expertise could be 

moved to Interior if NMFS merged with FWS, in which case 

separating NMFS from NOAA’s Office of General Counsel could have 

little effect.

• Law enforcement. NMFS’s Office of Law Enforcement also supports 

other NOAA programs, in particular, by enforcing laws and regulations 

in national marine sanctuaries, which are managed by NOAA’s 

National Ocean Service. NOAA would need to find another way to 

provide this service if NMFS merged with FWS.

• Research fleet. NOAA, through its Office of Marine and Aviation 

Operations, manages a fleet of ships and aircraft that NMFS and 

other NOAA offices use for scientific research. According to fleet 

officials, NOAA could, depending on the agreements reached as part 

of a merger, continue to provide NMFS access to these assets. The 

officials noted, however, that demand for access to NOAA’s ships and 

aircraft exceeds their availability and that if NMFS were no longer part 

of NOAA, it could receive a lower priority for access. Currently, NMFS 

is a major user of the NOAA fleet, using approximately 50 percent of 

Potential to Sever 

Connections between 

NMFS and Other NOAA 

Offices
 

Page 32 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

ship days. Fleet officials said that if NMFS’s access to NOAA’s fleet 

were reduced, NMFS might try to develop its own fleet capacity, which 

they believed could be less efficient than having a single fleet. 

Moreover, according to officials, having NMFS in NOAA makes it 

easier to identify missions where more than one NOAA office—for 

example, NMFS and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research—can use a ship at the same time.

• Programmatic connections. Programmatic connections exist between 

NMFS and other offices within NOAA, in particular the National Ocean 

Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. 

According to some officials and stakeholders, taking NMFS out of 

NOAA could make it harder for the programs to coordinate activities 

and research or to share information. The National Ocean Service, for 

example, is responsible for managing national marine sanctuaries. 

Fishing is allowed in most sanctuaries, although the National Ocean 

Service has restricted fishing in some sanctuaries. In such cases, the 

National Ocean Service works with NMFS and the appropriate 

regional fishery management council to set fishing restrictions, and 

some stakeholders said they believed that having both agencies 

located within NOAA made it easier to resolve issues and reach 

agreement. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 

sponsors research on a variety of topics relevant to fishery 

management, such as studying the relationship between fisheries and 

ecosystems and the potential effects of climate change on fish 

populations or distribution. The office’s National Sea Grant College 

Program, along with NMFS, also funds a number of fellowships for 

research on topics, such as stock assessments and resource 

economics, of direct relevance to NMFS. NMFS officials told us they 

work closely with the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to 

identify opportunities for joint research between Sea Grant fellows and 

NMFS scientists. Officials told us they were concerned that separating 

NMFS from the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would 

hinder their ability to coordinate research.

Another potential drawback mentioned by some officials and stakeholders 

is that merging the agencies could entail substantial transition costs. 

Some of these officials and stakeholders, however, also said that the 

transition costs of a merger would be temporary and do not in and of 

themselves constitute a reason to avoid reorganizing the agencies.

Transition costs would arise in large part because a merger would entail 

NMFS’s changing a number of business and information technology 

systems, including those related to budgeting, finance, and human 

Potential to Incur 

Transition Costs
 

Page 33 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

capital. These systems provide information critical to effective 

management by, for example, accurately tracking expenditures to ensure 

that funds are appropriately spent. If the agencies merged, NMFS would 

need to move from systems supported by NOAA or Commerce to 

systems supported by Interior. Since no specific proposal has been put 

forward to merge NMFS into FWS, neither Commerce, Interior, nor the 

Office of Management and Budget has developed detailed estimates of 

the cost to consolidate the agencies’ budgeting, financial, information 

technology, and other business systems.

Some officials and stakeholders also said that another potential drawback 

is that a major reorganization unavoidably disrupts agency programs in 

the short term. Some officials and stakeholders estimated that such 

disruptions could last for as long as 5 or 10 years.47

Disruptions to agency programs cited by officials and stakeholders 

include the following:

As with those who 

said a merger would result in transition costs, however, some who cited 

program disruptions emphasized that disruptions are temporary and not 

necessarily a reason to avoid reorganizing the agencies. These officials 

and stakeholders said it is more important to take a long-term perspective 

and determine whether the overall benefits of reorganization outweigh the 

drawbacks.

• In the short term, employees may have less time to direct toward their 

programs while they may have to move offices, integrate into a new 

organizational structure, and learn new policies and procedures. In 

some cases, employees might gain new programmatic 

responsibilities, which would take time to learn. The stress and 

uncertainty often accompanying major reorganizations would likely 

also temporarily take employees’ attention away from their programs.

• For many of the agencies’ programs, officials would need to review 

regulations, policies, procedures, and other guidance to identify and 

 

47Previous GAO work has noted that the experiences of successful major change 

management initiatives in large private- and public-sector organizations suggest it can 

often take at least 5 to 7 years until such initiatives are fully implemented, and the related 

cultures are transformed in a sustainable manner. See GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: 

Mergers and Transformations: Lessons Learned for a Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002).

Potential to Disrupt 

Agency Programs in the 

Short Term
 

Page 34 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

resolve any differences between the agencies. For example, as 

previously discussed, NMFS and FWS currently have different 

regulations implementing parts of the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. If the agencies merge, they may need 

to adopt a single approach. Similarly, officials said the two agencies’ 

law enforcement programs currently have different protocols—for 

example, for conducting investigations or collecting and maintaining 

evidence—which would need to be reconciled. Resolving differences 

between the agencies’ policies and procedures would take time away 

from running the agencies’ programs, both for the staff revising the 

policies and for the staff who would need to learn the changes.

• The differences in the two agencies’ cultures and certain elements of 

their missions could make it difficult to combine the two staffs into a 

single agency. Some officials and stakeholders said that employees 

are committed to their respective agencies’ missions and could be 

slow to embrace any changes, particularly if they felt that part of 

“their” mission was a lower priority in the combined agency. Other 

officials and stakeholders, however, said that some employees would 

believe that merging the agencies would benefit fish and wildlife and 

would welcome the change. Moreover, others said that employee 

resistance to change should not be a factor in determining whether to 

reorganize the agencies and that employees who did not like the 

change could always leave.

GAO has issued numerous reports examining different aspects of

reorganizing and improving the efficiency of government (a list of selected 

GAO products related to these topics is included at the end of this report). 

This previous work has identified a number of key management practices 

that could help mitigate program disruptions and transition costs 

inevitably accompanying reorganization (see table 1). Such key practices 

include the importance of leadership and of establishing a clear mission 

and strategic goals to guide the transformation. Some officials and 

stakeholders we interviewed recognized the importance of incorporating 

these practices if NMFS were merged into FWS. For example, some 

emphasized that strong agency leadership would be needed to clearly 

explain the rationale behind the merger and ease the cultural disruption 

accompanying reorganization. Strong leadership, they said, could help 

ensure that employees do not see a merger as creating “winners and 

losers,” fostering internal support for the move and minimizing disruption 

to agency programs. Some officials and stakeholders said it is also 

Key Management Practices 

That Could Help Mitigate 

Program Disruptions and 

Transition Costs
 

Page 35 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

important to clearly define the problem a reorganization is intended to 

address and the goals it is expected to achieve.

Table 1: Key Practices Found in Successful Mergers and Organizational 

Transformations

Ensure top leadership drives the transformation. Leadership must set the direction, 

pace, and tone and provide a clear, consistent rationale that brings everyone together 

behind a single mission.

Establish a clear mission and integrated strategic goals to guide the 

transformation. Together, these define the culture and serve as a vehicle for employees 

to unite and rally around.

Focus on a key set of principles and priorities at the outset of the transformation.

A clear set of principles and priorities serves as a framework to help the organization 

create a new culture and drive employee behaviors.

Set implementation goals and a timeline to build momentum and show progress 

from day one. Goals and a timeline are essential because the transformation could take 

years to complete. 

Dedicate an implementation team to manage the transformation process. A strong 

and stable team is important to ensure that the transformation receives the needed 

attention to be sustained and successful.

Use the performance management system to define responsibility and assure 

accountability for change. A “line of sight” shows how team, unit, and individual 

performance can contribute to overall organizational results.

Establish a communication strategy to create shared expectations and report 

related progress. The strategy must reach out to employees, customers, and 

stakeholders and engage them in a two-way exchange.

Involve employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the 

transformation. Employee involvement strengthens the process and allows them to 

share their experiences and shape policies.

Build a world-class organization. Building on a vision of improved performance, the 

organization adopts the most efficient, effective, and economical personnel, system, and 

process changes and continually seeks to implement best practices.

Source: GAO.
 

Page 36 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Officials and stakeholders we interviewed also identified potential benefits 

and drawbacks of several alternative organizational structures that have 

previously been proposed, including moving NOAA into Interior, creating 

a new department of natural resources, and establishing NOAA as a 

stand-alone agency. Officials and stakeholders also identified potential 

benefits and drawbacks of keeping the current organizational structure.

Officials and stakeholders said that although merging NMFS into FWS 

would be a good first step toward better integrating natural resource 

management and addressing large-scale environmental challenges, 

moving all of NOAA into Interior could better achieve this integration by 

bringing even more aspects of federal land and ocean management 

under the same department. Specifically, officials and stakeholders 

identified the following potential benefits of improved integration:

• Addressing land-freshwater-ocean issues more effectively. Some 

agency officials and stakeholders said moving NOAA to Interior could 

allow the federal government to more effectively address issues such 

as “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico;48

 

48Areas in the ocean where the water has low levels of oxygen dissolved in it are referred 

to as “dead zones” because most marine life either dies or leaves the area. According to 

NOAA, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico in 2012 was about the size of the state of 

Delaware.

impacts of offshore energy 

development; climate change; and other challenges that span land, 

fresh water, and oceans because NOAA’s other ocean-managementrelated offices, including the National Ocean Service and the Office of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, would be included in such a 

move. For example, FWS officials told us they believe the government 

could restore fish and wildlife habitat more effectively and efficiently 

after offshore oil spills if Interior also included the National Ocean 

Service. This NOAA office plays a significant role, along with FWS, in 

habitat restoration efforts after such events.

Officials and 

Stakeholders Also 

Identified Several Key 

Potential Benefits and 

Drawbacks of 

Alternative 

Organizational 

Options

Moving NOAA into Interior 

Could Better Integrate 

Management of Land and 

Ocean Resources but 

Might Diminish Attention 

to Ocean Issues
 

Page 37 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

• Better management coordination. Some agency officials told us that 

another potential benefit of having the National Ocean Service in 

Interior is that the agencies could better coordinate the management 

of marine refuges, monuments, and sanctuaries with management of 

national wildlife refuges, managed by FWS, and national parks, 

managed by the National Park Service. The National Ocean Service 

manages 13 national marine sanctuaries and, in conjunction with 

FWS, NMFS, and the state of Hawaii, 1 marine national monument. 

National marine sanctuaries and monuments have some 

characteristics similar to those of national wildlife refuges and national 

parks. For example, certain types of disturbance or development—

such as disturbing or altering the seabed and developing oil, gas, and 

mineral resources—are prohibited or regulated in some national 

marine sanctuaries.

• Combining earth-ocean research and data collection. Some agency 

officials and stakeholders said it could be beneficial to combine the 

earth and ocean scientific research currently found in Interior and 

NOAA under one department. One former agency administrator said it 

could be beneficial to bring together NOAA and Interior scientists, 

especially those in NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research and National Weather Service and Interior’s U.S. 

Geological Survey, to tackle ecological challenges concerning 

terrestrial, freshwater, and marine natural resource management. 

Other officials pointed out that the agencies both generate and 

analyze similar types of data, including (1) location-based data used, 

for example, to create topographic maps and assess coastal health 

and (2) seismic data used, for example, in planning responses to 

earthquakes.49

In addition to improved integration of natural resource management, 

officials and stakeholders noted other potential benefits of moving NOAA 

into Interior. Some said they believed that moving all of NOAA to Interior 

would maintain the key connections between NMFS and the rest of 

NOAA’s offices. Officials and stakeholders also pointed to the similarities

that NOAA, as a resource management and science agency, has with 

Interior, which shares similar missions. A senior Interior official noted that 

These officials said it could be beneficial to further 

integrate these efforts.

 

49Location-based, or geospatial, data refers to information linked to specific geographic 

locations.
 

Page 38 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Secretaries of the Interior are often fully engaged with science and natural 

resource management issues, which is generally not the case for 

Secretaries of Commerce, given that the bulk of Commerce’s work 

consists of business- and trade-related activities. Recognizing this 

dynamic, some stakeholders said moving NOAA out of Commerce could 

benefit Commerce, since it would allow the department to focus on its 

trade and competitiveness mission.

Officials and stakeholders told us that moving NOAA into Interior posed a 

number of potential drawbacks as well, some of which are similar to the 

drawbacks of merging NMFS into FWS. Some stakeholders, for example, 

suggested that moving NOAA to Interior could diminish the attention 

directed to NOAA’s mission of protecting living marine resources and 

managing marine fisheries. They said that if NOAA were in Interior, it 

would be competing with Interior’s other agencies for budgetary 

resources, which could lead to less funding for the protection of living 

marine resources and fisheries, particularly since such protection can 

conflict with some of Interior’s offshore oil, gas, and wind energy 

development missions. Some stakeholders explained that because NOAA 

is dissimilar to the rest of Commerce, it does not compete directly with 

other agencies for funding, as it might if it were part of Interior. In addition, 

some officials and stakeholders questioned whether portions of NOAA, 

especially NOAA’s satellite program and the National Weather Service, 

would fit within Interior’s mission.

Some officials and stakeholders told us that if the goal is to fully integrate 

land and ocean resource management, creating an overall department of 

natural resources could be the best way to do it. These officials and 

stakeholders proposed that such a department could include agencies 

such as the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Army Corps of Engineers’ civil works programs,50

 

50An agency within the Department of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers provides a

variety of engineering services through military and civil works programs. The civil works 

program is responsible for investigating, developing, and maintaining water resource 

projects.

in addition to agencies 

within Interior and NOAA, although opinions differed as to the 

department’s exact makeup. Officials and stakeholders said that the 

benefits of creating a department of natural resources include 

consolidating science functions from across the government and shifting 

Creating a Department of 

Natural Resources Could 

Further Integrate Land and 

Ocean Resource 

Management but Could Be 

a Substantial 

Implementation Challenge
 

Page 39 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

toward managing natural resources on a large scale. Some officials and 

stakeholders said creating a department of natural resources could be the 

best way to achieve significant budgetary and management efficiencies. 

For example, one former Interior secretary said a large-scale 

reorganization is needed to truly reduce the cost to the federal 

government of natural resource management. A senior Interior official 

noted that it takes a long time to negotiate interagency memorandums of 

agreement and to process decisions through agency bureaucracies; one 

department overseeing natural resource decisions would eliminate the 

need for such coordination. One former Commerce secretary told us the 

efficiencies achieved by such a reorganization could also improve the 

public’s perception of government overall.

Nevertheless, some officials and stakeholders said a significant potential 

drawback of creating a department of natural resources is that it could be 

a substantial implementation challenge, given the number and size of 

distinct organizational entities that would have to be transformed. Some 

stakeholders mentioned the creation of the Department of Homeland 

Security as an example of the difficulties inherent in large 

transformations, including the length of time necessary to complete them. 

In our 2011 report on this department, we found that, 8 years after its 

creation, it had implemented key homeland security operations and 

achieved important goals, but the department’s transformation remained 

high risk because of continuing management challenges.51 Some 

stakeholders also noted that the sheer size of a department of natural 

resources, with its multiple missions, could make it difficult to manage.

Officials and stakeholders we interviewed generally disagreed on the 

potential effects of establishing NOAA as a stand-alone agency 

independent from Commerce and other departments. Some stakeholders 

suggested that such a move could lead to more attention for ocean 

issues, which, over time, could lead to more funding for addressing ocean 

management challenges. One former NOAA administrator said that a 

stand-alone NOAA could provide a strong, independent voice for oceanrelated issues as the country grapples with emerging challenges, such as 

managing deep-sea mining and increasing offshore energy development. 

 

51GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made and Work Remaining in 

Implementing Homeland Security Missions 10 Years after 9/11, GAO-11-881 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2011).

Establishing NOAA as a 

Stand-alone Agency Could 

Raise the Profile of Ocean 

Resources, According to 

Some, but Could 

Marginalize the Agency 

According to Others
 

Page 40 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

A member of NOAA’s advisory committee for living marine resources 

noted that establishing NOAA as an independent agency could send a 

message that oceans are a national priority. Others said establishing 

NOAA as a stand-alone agency could help direct attention to oceanbased policy, including the National Ocean Policy, and such an agency 

could be in the best position to execute this policy.52

Some other officials and stakeholders, however, told us they believed that 

making NOAA an independent agency would not yield these benefits, and 

some said it could be harmful to the agency’s mission. For example, 

some stakeholders expressed concern that NOAA’s small size relative to 

other agencies could limit its ability to obtain sufficient support, as well as 

sufficient funding, both within the administration and in Congress. For 

example, one NMFS official described NOAA’s budget as “decimal dust” 

when compared with the other agencies it would be competing with for 

funds, making it susceptible to budget cuts and weakening its ability to 

advocate for ocean resources and policy. Some officials and stakeholders

said these negative effects would be particularly likely to occur if the new 

agency did not have a cabinet-level secretary, but others said it could be 

difficult for NOAA to compete with other agencies and interests even as a 

cabinet-level agency. In addition, some stakeholders said that Commerce 

provides certain important services to NOAA, which they would not want 

to see lost. For example, one fishing industry organization representative 

said she is concerned that moving NOAA out of Commerce could hurt 

parts of the industry, pointing out that most of what her sector catches is 

exported, and the industry has benefited from Commerce’s trade policies. 

Further, some officials and stakeholders said making NOAA an 

Some stakeholders 

said it would be very important for the new agency to be included in the 

President’s cabinet, since doing so could provide greater access to highlevel budget and policy decision making than if NOAA were made an 

independent, non-cabinet-level agency. Other stakeholders also noted 

that this option may be less disruptive than others and that it could confer 

the same benefits to Commerce as moving NOAA to Interior by allowing 

Commerce to focus exclusively on its trade and competitiveness mission.

 

52In 2010, the President established a national policy to “ensure the protection, 

maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems 

and resources, enhance the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserve our 

maritime heritage, support sustainable uses and access, provide for adaptive management 

to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change and ocean 

acidification, and coordinate with our national security and foreign policy interests.” The 

president also established a National Ocean Council to implement this policy.
 

Page 41 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

independent agency would add to the stovepiping of government that the 

other reorganization options are trying to counter by integrating agencies. 

Some of the former agency directors and department secretaries we 

interviewed said that making NOAA an independent agency would not 

contribute to streamlining the government. Two former department 

secretaries said increasing the number of executive agencies makes it 

more difficult for the President to manage actions of the executive branch 

as a whole and to hold all the agencies accountable. Moreover, some 

officials and stakeholders noted that making NOAA an independent 

agency would not yield some of the key potential benefits that could come 

with the other reorganization options, such as having a single agency 

manage similar programmatic responsibilities.

Agency officials and stakeholders also identified potential benefits and 

drawbacks of maintaining the current organizational structure. They cited 

benefits such as averting the disruption to programs that could 

accompany a reorganization and the uncertainty of whether a 

reorganization would achieve its goals. Some stakeholders noted, 

however, that keeping the current structure would also mean missing an 

opportunity to better integrate natural resource management. Overall, 

officials and stakeholders generally said the drawbacks of reorganizing 

the agencies outweigh the benefits. As a few put it, “The juice is not worth 

the squeeze.” In contrast to this general view, however, of the 10 former 

heads of Commerce, Interior, NOAA, NMFS, and FWS we spoke with, 9 

of them told us they preferred making some kind of organizational 

change, although there was no consensus on what the best structure 

would be.

Some officials and stakeholders suggested that if the current 

organizational structure is retained, the agencies can still take steps to 

collaborate more effectively. At the program level, officials and 

stakeholders said efficiencies in the agencies’ Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act programs can be realized without a 

merger. For example, some officials and stakeholders said that the 

agencies could expand their existing efforts to issue joint regulations and 

policies to ensure that the agencies implement the act in a similar 

manner. Other officials and stakeholders said that colocating field offices 

and staff for the agencies’ endangered species programs could foster 

interagency collaboration and make it easier for the public to work with 

both agencies. The agencies have already colocated at least three of 

their field offices, one in California, one in Maine, and one in the state of 

Washington, where NMFS and FWS staff occupy the same building. 

Maintaining the Current 

Organizational Structure 

Would Avert Disruptions 

but Not Better Integrate 

Resource Management; 

Interagency Collaboration 

Could Help the Agencies 

Work Together More 

Effectively
 

Page 42 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

According to agency officials familiar with these colocated offices, the 

close proximity fosters more conversations and face-to-face contact, 

which in turn builds relationships and trust. The close relationships have 

led agency officials to find other efficiencies as well; for example, FWS 

has placed a staff member in NMFS’s Northwest regional office, and that 

person works on Endangered Species Act reviews on behalf of both 

agencies. In addition, FWS and NMFS regional officials noted that, in 

their view, the agencies collaborate better in states with colocated offices 

than in states where personnel are not as closely located.

We reported in 2012 that a number of interagency collaboration 

mechanisms, including office colocation, are being used by a variety of 

federal agencies.53

Table 2: Key Features of Interagency Collaborations and Issues to Consider When 

Collaborating

For example, the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Forest Service have established more than 30 offices under Service First 

agreements, where the agencies are colocated, combined, or commingled 

and where they share resources—including staff, office space, and other 

materials—to varying extents. FWS also participates in six such colocated 

offices under Service First agreements with the Bureau of Land 

Management, the Forest Service, or both. As we reported, certain key 

features can help colocation and other collaborative efforts be effective, 

such as clarity of roles and responsibilities (see table 2).

Key feature Issues to consider

Outcomes and 

accountability

Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly 

defined? Is there a way to track and monitor their progress? 

Bridging organizational 

cultures 

What are the missions and organizational cultures of the 

participating agencies? Have agencies agreed on common 

terminology and definitions? 

Leadership How will leadership be sustained over the long term? If 

leadership is shared, have roles and responsibilities been 

clearly identified and agreed upon? 

Clarity of roles and 

responsibilities 

Have participating agencies clarified roles and 

responsibilities? 

Participants Have all relevant participants been included? Do they have 

the ability to commit resources for their agency? 

 

53GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
 

Page 43 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization 

Key feature Issues to consider 

Resources How will the collaborative mechanism be funded and 

staffed? Have online collaboration tools been developed? 

Written guidance and 

agreements 

If appropriate, have participating agencies documented their 

agreement regarding how they will be collaborating? Have 

they developed ways to continually update and monitor 

these agreements? 

Source: GAO. 

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Departments of Commerce and the Interior. Commerce provided 

technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate. Interior did 

not provide comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator and Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries of NOAA, the Director of FWS, the appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. 

Anne-Marie Fennell 

Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: Former Agency Officials and 

Stakeholders GAO Interviewed

Page 44 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

We interviewed Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior and heads of 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 

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

Service (FWS) from each of the two previous administrations:

Bruce E. Babbitt

Secretary

Department of the Interior, 1993-2001

D. James Baker

Administrator

NOAA, 1993-2001

William M. Daley

Secretary

Department of Commerce, 1997-2000

Carlos M. Gutierrez

Secretary

Department of Commerce, 2005-2009

H. Dale Hall

Director

FWS, 2005-2009

William T. Hogarth

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

NMFS, 2000-2007

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.

Administrator

NOAA, 2001-2008

Gale A. Norton

Secretary

Department of the Interior, 2001-2006

Jamie Rappaport Clark

Director

FWS, 1997-2001

Rolland A. Schmitten

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

NMFS, 1993-1999

Appendix I: Former Agency Officials and 

Stakeholders GAO Interviewed
Appendix I: Former Agency Officials and 

Stakeholders GAO Interviewed

Page 45 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

We also interviewed officials from the following agencies and 

organizations: 

American Forest Resource Council

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

At-Sea Processors Association

Center for American Progress

Center for Biological Diversity

Coastal States Organization

Conservation International

Defenders of Wildlife

East Coast Shellfish Growers Association

Endangered Species Act Joint Task Force

Environmental Defense Fund

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association

Groundfish Forum

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

Joint Ocean Commission Initiative

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee

Marine Mammal Commission

Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game
Appendix I: Former Agency Officials and 

Stakeholders GAO Interviewed

Page 46 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management

National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature Conservancy

New England Fishery Management Council

Northeast Consortium

North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Oceana

Ocean Conservancy

Pacific Fishery Management Council

Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

Puget Sound Partnership

Restore America’s Estuaries

Southern Shrimp Alliance

Taylor Shellfish Farms

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research Center

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 47 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

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

Director; Eric Bachhuber; Antoinette Capaccio; Ellen W. Chu; Jonathan 

Dent; Anu Mittal; Leslie Pollock; and Anne Rhodes-Kline made key 

contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Elizabeth 

Curda and Armetha Liles.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 48 GAO-13-248 Government Reorganization

Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.: 

September 27, 2012.

Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities for Improvement 

and Considerations for Restructuring. GAO-12-454T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 21, 2012.

Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives 

Should Be Shared Governmentwide. GAO-11-908. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2011.

Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made and Work Remaining 

in Implementing Homeland Security Missions 10 Years after 9/11. 

GAO-11-940T. Washington D.C.: September 8, 2011.

Federal Land Management: Observations on a Possible Move of the 

Forest Service into the Department of the Interior. GAO-09-223. 

Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2009.

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 

Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington, 

D.C.: October 21, 2005.

Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations. GAO-03-669. Washington, D.C.: 

July 2, 2003.

Executive Reorganization Authority: Balancing Executive and 

Congressional Roles in Shaping the Federal Government’s Structure.

GAO-03-624T. Washington, D.C.: April 3, 2003.

Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and Transformations: Lessons 

Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal 

Agencies. GAO-03-293SP. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2002.

Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues. 

GAO-02-957T. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002.

Related GAO Products

(361381)
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 (http://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 http://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: http://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.