Environmental Litigation: Information on Endangered Species Act Deadline Suits
Published: 2017-02-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
To receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, a species must be on one of the federal lists of threatened or endangered species. Section 4 of the act includes mandatory deadlines for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to complete certain actions, such as issuing decisions on petitions to add or remove a species from either list.
If the agencies miss a deadline, any person can file a lawsuit—called a deadline suit—to force them to complete these activities. We found that 141 deadlines suits were filed during fiscal years 2005-2015—mostly related to petitions to add a species to one of the lists.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To receive protection under the ESA—enacted to conserve at risk species—a species must first be added to one of the federal lists of threatened or endangered species. FWS and NMFS jointly administer the ESA and have programs that encompass actions related to Section 4 of the ESA. Some of these actions—such as making findings on petitions filed by a person or group requesting addition or removal of species from one of the lists—must be completed by specific statutory deadlines.
GAO was asked to review deadline litigation brought under Section 4 of the ESA. This report examines (1) the number and scope of deadline suits filed against the Services during fiscal years 2005 through 2015 under Section 4 of the ESA, and (2) the outcomes of these suits and the effect, if any, the suits had on the Services' implementation of their Section 4 programs.
GAO reviewed the ESA and agency documents; obtained a list of Section 4-related suits filed during fiscal years 2005 through 2015 from the Department of Justice, which is responsible for representing the Services; identified from the list those that were deadline suits and compared the list with other sources to confirm reliability; analyzed the suits, including documentation on how they were resolved; and interviewed Justice, FWS, and NMFS officials.
The agencies provided technical comments on this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that plaintiffs filed 141 deadline suits against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for allegedly failing to take actions within statutory deadlines under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during fiscal years 2005 through 2015 (see figure). Section 4 contains mandatory deadlines for such actions as making findings on petitions to list or delist species as threatened or endangered. The suits involved 1,441 species and cited a range of Section 4 actions, but most suits were related to missed deadlines for issuing findings on petitions to list species.
Figure: Number of Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Suits Filed, Fiscal Years 2005-2015
The majority of deadline suits filed during fiscal years 2005 through 2015 were resolved through negotiated settlement agreements that established schedules for the agencies to complete the actions involved in the suits. Agency officials said that most deadline suits are resolved through settlement because it is undisputed that a statutory deadline was missed. Other than setting schedules for completing Section 4 actions, the settlement agreements did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rule-making requirements the Services were to follow in completing the actions, such as providing opportunities for public notice and comment on proposed listing rules. Officials also said they prioritize completing actions in settlement agreements in implementing their Section 4 programs. NMFS officials indicated that work resulting from deadline suits did not have a significant effect on the implementation of their program, in part because NMFS has not had a high number of petitions to list species. In contrast, FWS has delayed completing some actions to complete those included in settlement agreements. FWS has initiated several changes to help improve Section 4 program implementation, including developing a 7-year workplan that prioritizes the order for completing overdue actions and revising information requirements for listing petitions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was enacted to conserve  threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they  depend. The ESA is jointly administered by the Department of the  Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service  (NMFS), within the Department of Commerce, collectively referred to as  “the Services.” To receive protection under the ESA, a species must first  be added to one of the federal lists of threatened or endangered species,  which typically happens in response to a person or group filing a petition  to list the species with one of the Services. Under Section 4 of the ESA,  when one of the Services receives a petition to list or delist a species, it  must determine whether the petition presents substantial information that  the action may be warranted, and if so, proceed with a review of the  species. For those species where a review is conducted, the Services  must then determine whether the species’ listing or delisting is warranted,  and if so, issue a rule proposing to add or remove the species from the  threatened or endangered lists. Under the Services’ Section 4 programs,  the Services also take action to designate and revise critical habitat for  listed species—areas essential to a species’ conservation— and conduct  5-year status reviews to evaluate any changes in the status of a listed  species, among other things.
In addition, Section 4 of the ESA includes statutory deadlines for the  Services to take actions on listing or delisting species, designating and  revising critical habitat, and conducting 5-year status reviews. Under the  ESA, any person or entity may file a lawsuit to compel the Services to  take statutorily required actions if they have not already done so within  the statutorily designated time frames. These suits, known as deadline  suits, are one category of court challenges over the past several decades  to various aspects of the Services’ implementation of the act. Some  stakeholders have raised concerns that deadline suits burden the  Services’ workloads and resources and unduly influence their priorities.  In contrast, others maintain that species have been neglected for years  awaiting listing by the Services and only gained protection under the act  because litigation forced the Services to take action.
You asked us to review deadline litigation brought under Section 4 of the  ESA. Specific to the Services’ Section 4 programs, this report examines  (1) the number and scope of deadline suits filed against the Services from fiscal years 2005 through 2015, and (2) the outcomes of these suits and  the effect, if any, the suits had on the Services’ implementation of their  Section 4 programs.
To conduct our work, we reviewed the ESA, including the Section 4  provisions that contain statutory deadlines that can be enforced through  citizen suits. To determine the number and scope of deadline suits filed  against the Services, we met with officials from the Department of Justice  (DOJ)—the agency responsible for representing the Services in deadline  litigation—and obtained a list of the suits filed during fiscal years 2005  through 2015 that involved a claim that one or both of the Services failed  to take an ESA Section 4 action by a required statutory deadline. We  used DOJ data to obtain a list of suits because the Services do not  maintain such data and there is no other comprehensive public source of  information on deadline suits involving Section 4 of the ESA. Using the  federal judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)  system, we then obtained and reviewed a copy of the complaint for each  suit on the list. After reviewing each complaint, we identified those suits  that included at least one claim that one or both of the Services failed to  take a Section 4 action by the applicable statutory deadline. Based on  our review of the suits and comparison with other information on cases  provided by NMFS and a group active in filing Section 4 deadline suits,  we determined the list of deadline suits to be sufficiently complete and  reliable for reporting information on the number and scope of suits filed  during fiscal years 2005 through 2015. We then analyzed information in  each of the deadline suits to identify the Section 4 provisions the suits  were based on, the number and type of species involved, lead plaintiffs,  and other characteristics. We also used FWS’s Environmental  Conservation Online System (ECOS) and NMFS endangered species  program websites to obtain information on listed species and the regional  offices responsible for these species. Based on our review of  information maintained on ECOS and the NMFS endangered species  program websites, and our comparison of this information with  information from other sources such as Federal Register notices and  other published documents on the species, we determined ECOS and the  NMFS websites to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of capturing  information on listed species.
To identify the outcomes of the deadline suits and any effects the suits  had on the Services’ implementation of their Section 4 programs, we used  PACER to obtain and analyze documentation of how the suits were  resolved, including any actions to be taken by the Services resulting from  the suits. We then used information from the Federal Register to  document when the required actions were completed and what decisions were made (e.g. species listed or not listed). We conducted interviews  with officials from DOJ, FWS, and NMFS about the outcomes of the  deadline suits. We also discussed with FWS and NMFS officials the  effects, if any, the suits had on their Section 4 programs and reviewed the  agencies’ Section 4 program policies, guidance, and other agency  documentation. In addition, to obtain broader perspectives about deadline  suits, we reviewed literature on ESA deadline litigation, and based on that  review, we identified and interviewed four stakeholder organizations we  selected to reflect a range of viewpoints on the ESA and deadline suits.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2015 through  February 2017 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FWS, operating through its headquarters and eight regional offices, is  responsible for managing 1,586 of the listed species found in the United  States (see fig.1). NMFS, operating through its headquarters and five  regional offices, is responsible for managing 96 listed species. In  addition, the Services have proposed an additional 41 species for listing,  but as of January 2017 had not yet made a final determination on listing  those species. Additionally, since enactment of the ESA, the Services  have delisted 76 species—47 as a result of recovery efforts, 10 due to the  species’ extinction, and 19 because of data errors in the original listing.
The Services’ Section 4 programs encompass all actions related to listing  or delisting species, designating or revising critical habitat, and  conducting 5-year status reviews for listed species. Regarding listing or  delisting a species, the process begins either through a petition submitted  by an individual, group, or state agency or a review initiated by one of the  Services. For petitions to list a species, the Service with jurisdiction over  the species follows a multi-step process to determine if the listing of the  species is warranted, as depicted in figure 2. For the species that the  relevant Service determines warrant listing, the Service issues and  publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register. The issuance of a  proposed or final rule to list a species is generally governed by  procedures prescribed in the ESA and Administrative Procedure Act,  such as providing opportunities for the public to submit additional  information and comment on proposed rules. After evaluating any  additional information and comments, if the relevant Service determines  that the species is threatened or endangered, it generally issues a final  rule to add the species to the respective list. FWS also maintains a  “candidate” list for those species it determines warrant listing, but has  determined that the immediate listing of the species is precluded by work  on higher priority listing actions, such as actions for other species facing  greater threats. Each year FWS publishes a Candidate Notice of Review  that documents the Service’s re-evaluation of the status and threats  facing each candidate species to determine whether the species should  be removed from the candidate list and either proposed for listing or  withdrawn from further consideration. As of December 2016, there were  30 species identified by FWS as candidates for listing.
When a species is proposed for listing, the act requires the Services to  concurrently consider whether there are areas essential to the species’  conservation and if so, to propose designation of critical habitat for the  species. Critical habitat may include areas occupied by the species— such as areas that provide food, water, cover or shelter, or sites for  breeding and rearing offspring—as well as unoccupied areas that the  Services determine are essential for the conservation of the species. As  of January 2017, the Services had collectively designated critical habitat  for 846 species listed as endangered or threatened in the United States.  In addition, Section 4 of the ESA requires the Services to review the  status of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of  the 5-year status review is to evaluate whether a listed species should be  delisted, reclassified from an endangered to threatened species  (downlisted) or from a threatened to endangered species (uplisted), or if  its classification should not change.
In 1982, Congress amended the ESA to establish statutory deadlines for  the Services to complete Section 4 actions associated with listing,  delisting, critical habitat designations or revisions, and 5-year status  reviews. According to the accompanying Conference Committee report,  the intended purposes of the amendments were to “expedite the  decisionmaking process and to ensure prompt action in determining the  status of the many species which may require the protections of the  Act.” Congress also amended Section 11 of the act to authorize citizens  to file suits against the Services for failing to perform actions by the  deadlines imposed under Section 4. Each of the specific Section 4  actions and their associated statutory deadlines are described in table 1.
For decades, FWS has faced challenges in implementing its Section 4  program, in part because of a high volume of litigation and petitions  seeking to add a large number of species to the threatened and  endangered species lists. For example, in 2007, FWS received two  “mega-petitions,” collectively requesting the listing of 674 species in the  Southwest and Mountain-Prairie regions. In 2010, another “mega-petition”  was submitted requesting the listing of 404 southeast aquatic species.  During fiscal years 2005 through 2015, FWS received 170 petitions to list  1,446 species. According to a 2010 FWS report to Congress, petitions  to list species are an integral aspect of endangered and threatened  species protection. The report further stated, however, that FWS does  not have the capability to postpone action on petitions because of  statutory deadlines or to balance that work with other Section 4 program  actions. The report also indicated that any delay in making a petition  finding could lead to litigation for which FWS has no sufficient legal  defense. As a result, with limited resources and a significant petition  workload with statutory deadlines, FWS has been vulnerable to and has  experienced a high volume of litigation that has affected much of FWS’s  Section 4 program since the early 1990s.
Beginning in fiscal year 1998, and in each year thereafter, annual  appropriations acts have established statutory caps on the funds  available for FWS to implement certain provisions within its Section 4  program. According to FWS officials, the initial spending cap was  established to limit the amount that could be spent on listing actions so  that funds would be available for other Section 4 actions, such as  developing and completing recovery plans. Subsequent appropriations  acts established additional spending caps specific to 90-day and 12- month petition findings, critical habitat designations, and foreign species- related listing actions. During fiscal years 2005 through 2015, overall  funding for FWS’s listing and critical habitat actions averaged about $20  million per year (see fig. 3).
section_title: A Variety of Plaintiffs Filed 141 Deadline Suits Involving 1,441 Species, Mostly Against FWS
paragraphs: Based on our review, we found that a variety of plaintiffs filed 141  deadline suits against the Services for allegedly failing to comply with  statutory deadlines for Section 4 actions involving 1,441 species during  fiscal years 2005 through 2015. Approximately 86 percent of the suits  (122 of 141) were filed against FWS, about 10 percent (14 of 141) were  filed against NMFS, and about 4 percent (5 of 141) were filed against  both Services (see app. I for a list of the 141 deadline suits). On average,  about 13 deadline suits were filed each fiscal year, ranging from 5  deadline suits in fiscal year 2015 to 33 suits in fiscal year 2010 (see fig.  4).
The deadline suits filed against the Services involved allegedly missing  deadlines across the range of Section 4 actions, including listing,  delisting, designating or revising critical habitat, and conducting 5-year  status reviews. Figure 5 provides information on the number of suits that  were filed across the 11-year period based on the specific Section 4  action involved.
Additionally, the 141 deadline suits included Section 4 actions for a total  of 1,441 unique species (see app. II). The majority of the suits (93 of 141)  centered on an action for a single species, such as allegedly missing the  deadline to issue a 90-day finding on a petition to list a specific species,  but about one-third of the suits (48 of 141) involved actions for multiple  species. For example, a 2009 suit filed by WildEarth Guardians alleged  that FWS failed to make 90-day findings for two petitions it had submitted  to list 674 Rocky Mountain and Southwestern species. Similarly, in  2005, California State Grange—a nonprofit organization promoting  agriculture and rural family farm units in California—filed a suit against  FWS for allegedly failing to conduct 5-year status reviews for 194 listed  species located in California.
Factoring in species involved in the suits as well as the specific Section 4  actions at issue, we found that collectively, the deadline suits comprised a  total of 1,673 actions. FWS was responsible for the majority of the  actions (1,545 of 1,673), NMFS was responsible for 120 of the 1,673  actions, and the two agencies worked jointly on 8 actions. Table 2  provides a breakdown—by fiscal year and type of Section 4 action—of  the total number of actions involved across the deadline suits filed against  the Services during fiscal years 2005 through 2015. See appendix II for  additional information on the number and type of actions specific to each  agency.
Across the deadline suits filed during fiscal years 2005 through 2015, 44  different lead plaintiffs representing a variety of interests filed suits  against the Services (see table 3). However, two environmental groups,  the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians, collectively  filed more than half of the suits (73 of 141). The Center for Biological  Diversity was the most active plaintiff, filing a total of 46 deadline suits  against the Services over this period for allegedly missing deadlines for  completing 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to list hundreds of  species. Trade associations, representing businesses and industry such  as the California Cattlemen’s Association and Florida Home Builders  Association, filed suits against FWS for allegedly missing deadlines  related to 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to delist threatened  and endangered species as well as allegedly missing deadlines in  conducting 5-year status reviews for a number of species.
section_title: The Majority of Deadline Suits Were Resolved through Settlement Agreements, and FWS Delayed Some Section 4 Actions to Prioritize Those Covered by Settlement Agreements and Court Orders
paragraphs: Based on our analysis, we found that the majority of ESA Section 4  deadline suits filed in fiscal years 2005 through 2015 were resolved  through negotiated settlement agreements that established schedules for  the Services to complete the actions involved in the suits. Otherwise, the  settlement agreements did not affect the substantive basis or procedural  rule-making requirements the Services were to follow in completing the  actions. Officials from both Services said they prioritized completing  actions included in settlement agreements in implementing their Section 4  workloads. NMFS officials indicated that the deadline suits and their  resulting settlement agreements did not have a significant effect on the  implementation of the agency’s Section 4 program. In contrast, FWS has  delayed completing some Section 4 actions to complete those included in  settlement agreements. FWS has initiated several changes to its Section  4 program to help prioritize the order in which it addresses its backlog of  hundreds of overdue actions and to help increase the efficiency of its  Section 4 program, including revising information requirements for listing  petitions.
subsections: section_title: The Majority of Deadline Suits Were Resolved through Negotiated Settlement Agreements Establishing Schedules for the Services to Complete Section 4 Actions
paragraphs: The Services resolved the majority of deadline suits filed during fiscal  years 2005 through 2015 by negotiated settlement agreements, whereby  the parties generally agreed on a schedule for the Services to complete  the Section 4 actions at issue in the suits. Specifically, the Services  resolved about 72 percent of the suits (101 of 141) through negotiated  settlement agreements (see table 4). About 22 percent of the suits (31 of  141) were resolved through voluntary or unopposed dismissal, primarily  because the Services had completed the actions involved in the suits and  nothing further remained to be litigated. The remaining 9 deadline suits,  all involving FWS, were resolved by a court order. Specifically, the courts  dismissed 6 of the suits, ruling in favor of FWS. In the other 3 suits, the  courts issued orders directing FWS to complete the Section 4 action at  issue by an established schedule.
According to officials from DOJ and the Services, the agencies coordinate  in deciding how to respond to a deadline suit, including whether or not to  negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff or proceed with litigation. In  reaching its decision, DOJ considers several factors, including whether  there may be a legal defense to the suit—such as providing information  establishing that the agency took action on the finding at issue or that the  plaintiff lacked standing—and the likelihood that the government could  obtain a favorable outcome. The officials said that most deadline suits  are resolved through a negotiated settlement agreement because in the  majority of them, it is undisputed that a statutory deadline was missed.
When negotiating the terms of a settlement agreement, DOJ officials said  they consult with the Services to evaluate their workload, priorities, and  available resources to propose a reasonable deadline for making the  decisions agreed to under the settlement. DOJ officials said they are  guided by a 1986 DOJ memorandum—referred to as the Meese  Memorandum—in negotiating settlement terms. Accordingly, officials  from DOJ and the Services stated that any agreement to settle a deadline  suit would only include a commitment to perform a mandatory Section 4  action by an agreed-upon schedule and would not otherwise  predetermine or prescribe a specific substantive outcome for the actions  to be completed by the Services. Similarly, for those suits resolved by a  court order, DOJ officials said they present what they believe is a  reasonable timeframe for the court to consider in establishing a schedule  for the Services to complete the action.
Most settlement agreements established time frames specific to the  Section 4 action at issue, but in some settlement agreements, the  Services also agreed to complete additional, related actions within certain  time frames. For example, several settlement agreements contained  provisions for the Services to complete an action by a certain date as well  as a related, contingent action by the applicable Section 4 statutory  deadline, such as a 12-month finding for a listing petition, if the 90-day  finding concluded that the listing of a species may be warranted.
Additionally, in 2010, DOJ sought to have multiple deadline suits—filed by  the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians against FWS  that were pending in several district courts—transferred and consolidated  by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation (MDL). The MDL panel  consolidated 15 deadline suits in the federal district court for the District of  Columbia, and in 2011, FWS reached a separate settlement agreement  with each of the plaintiffs in these suits. The settlement agreements  primarily established schedules for FWS to make hundreds of 90-day and  12-month findings on listing petitions. In the settlement agreement with  WildEarth Guardians, FWS also agreed to make either not warranted  findings or proposed and final listing determinations for the 251 species  that were candidate species in 2010. Each agreement also included  provisions that for any action that resulted in a proposed listing rule, the  final listing determination would be made in accordance with the one-year  period prescribed in the statute. In exchange for these commitments  made by FWS, each of the plaintiffs agreed to limits on filing additional  listing petitions and deadline suits until the terms of the agreements  conclude in fiscal year 2017. According to FWS officials, consolidating  these suits and entering into the two settlement agreements helped make  FWS’s Section 4 workload more predictable, essentially establishing a  five-year work plan that reflected the agency’s priorities for completing  overdue Section 4 actions for hundreds of species.
Other than agreed-upon schedules for completing Section 4 actions, the  settlement agreements and court orders did not affect the substantive  basis or procedural rule-making requirements the Services were to follow  in completing the actions. For example, the settlement agreements  contained provisions specifying that nothing in the agreement should be  interpreted to limit or modify the discretion afforded to the Services under  the ESA. Similarly, the provisions also stated that the agreements did not  change any of the procedures to be followed, or the substance of, any  rulemaking action to be completed under the agreement, such as  opportunities for public comment on proposed listing rules. These  opportunities include submitting comments and additional information to  be considered during the status review accompanying a 12-month finding  on a listing petition, notice and public comment period on any proposed  rule to list a species or designate or revise critical habitat, and notice of  issuance of any final rule.
Based on our analysis, we found that as of December 2016, the Services  collectively completed 1,766 Section 4 actions related to the 104 suits  that were resolved by settlement agreements and court orders entered  into fiscal years 2005 through 2015. Table 5 provides a breakdown of  the outcomes of the decisions the Services made related to these Section  4 actions, based on whether the Services made a positive finding— determining that a listing, delisting, or critical habitat-related action was  warranted—or a negative finding, meaning that the Services generally  found that the action at issue was not warranted.
section_title: The Services Prioritized Completing Actions Included in Settlement Agreements and Court Orders, but FWS Delayed Other Section 4 Actions
paragraphs: The Services prioritized completing actions included in settlement  agreements and court orders, but FWS delayed working on some Section  4 actions to complete those covered in the agreements and orders. In  implementing the Services’ Section 4 programs, officials from both  Services said they prioritized completing actions included in settlement  agreements and court orders above other Section 4 actions. According to  NMFS officials, deadline suits and their resulting settlement agreements  during fiscal years 2005 through 2015 did not have a significant effect on  the implementation of their Section 4 program. NMFS officials said this is  largely because NMFS is responsible for fewer species than FWS, has  not received as many of the ‘mega-petitions’ for listing species that FWS  has, and has largely been able to manage its workload without being  compelled to act in response to deadline suits. The officials added that in  many instances in which a deadline suit was filed, NMFS was already  working on the Section 4 action at issue and therefore making a decision  by an agreed-to time frame did not significantly alter how NMFS  implemented its Section 4 program workload.
In contrast to NMFS, FWS has delayed completing some Section 4  actions, including those with statutory deadlines, to complete actions  included in settlement agreements and court orders, according to FWS  documentation. For fiscal years 2005 through 2015, FWS officials said  they have focused much of their Section 4 program on completing actions  required under settlement agreements and court orders. This focus has  been particularly evident since 2011, when FWS entered into the two  MDL settlement agreements that established a five-year workplan for  completing hundreds of listing and other Section 4 actions by the end of  fiscal year 2017. To fulfill its commitments under these agreements,  FWS’s efforts related to listing have required the use of substantially all of  its petition and listing budgetary resources, according to FWS documents.
In focusing on completing the actions covered by the two MDL settlement  agreements, FWS documents indicated that the agency was limited in its  ability to undertake work on additional Section 4 actions outside of the  agreements. For example, according to an FWS press release  announcing positive 90-day listing petition findings for 374 southeastern  aquatic species included in one of the 2011 MDL settlement agreements,  FWS stated that it was unable to complete 12-month status reviews for  these species until fiscal year 2017. The agency explained that this was  because of existing commitments made under various settlement  agreements and court orders. According to FWS documents, it has not  had resources sufficient to complete its backlog of overdue actions and  with anticipated resources, it has the capacity to complete a limited  number of actions per year. As of September 2016, FWS’s backlog of  overdue Section 4 actions included nearly 600 12-month findings on  listing petitions and other listing-related actions that FWS has been  unable to address while it focused on completing its litigation-related  workload.
To help prioritize the order in which it addresses its backlog and to help  increase the efficiency of its Section 4 program, FWS has initiated several  changes to its program. For example, starting in October 2015, FWS  implemented a streamlined process for publishing its 90-day and 12- month findings in the Federal Register. Instead of issuing each decision  individually, as was done in the past, the streamlined process bundles all  90-day findings on a quarterly basis and 12-month findings biannually and  publishes those decisions collectively in the Federal Register. FWS  officials said that they anticipate this streamlined approach will result in  administrative efficiencies and reduced publishing costs.
In March 2016, FWS established a Unified Listing Team with the goal of  promoting a more consistent, efficient, and timely petition review  process. An initial activity this team undertook included developing a  National Listing Workplan for fiscal years 2017-2023. This 7-year  workplan lays out a plan for addressing FWS’s backlog of listing petition  findings and critical habitat decisions. According to FWS documentation,  the workplan will help enable the agency to more effectively and  efficiently administer its workload based on the needs of candidate and  petitioned species while providing greater clarity and predictability to the  public about the timing of its actions. In developing the workplan, FWS  utilized its prioritization methodology that was finalized in July 2016. The  prioritization methodology outlines the order of priority that FWS will give  to species in making 12-month findings on listing petitions, giving highest  priority to species considered to be critically imperiled. FWS officials  said the agency’s ability to implement its workplan as scheduled is  subject to change based on future funding and litigation, which may  require FWS to reprioritize its workload.
In addition, in September 2016, the Services jointly issued a final rule  revising regulations that outline the process and information required for  listing petitions. The Services stated that the purposes for the revisions  were “to improve the content and specificity of petitions to enhance the  efficiency and effectiveness of the petition process to support species  conservation.” Among other revisions, petitions will be limited to one  species per petition, and petitioners will be required to provide a  “complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts” with respect to  the Services’ initial 90-day finding. According to officials from the  Services, improving the quality of information submitted in support of  listing petitions will help enable the Services to more efficiently process  the petitions and issue decisions in a timelier manner.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and the  Department of Justice. The Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and  Justice each provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the  Secretary of the Interior, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any 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. GAO staff members who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: List of Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Suits, Fiscal Years 2005- 2015
paragraphs: Section 4 deadline suits include citizen suits filed against the U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service  (NMFS) to compel compliance with statutory deadlines for certain actions  under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 4 of the  act includes statutory deadlines for the Services to complete certain  mandatory actions, including making findings on petitions to list or delist  species, designating or revising critical habitat, and conducting 5-year  status reviews of listed species. Table 6 provides information on each of  the deadline suits filed against the Services during fiscal years 2005  through 2015, including the date the suit was filed, the district court in  which it was filed, a summary of the Section 4 action at issue, and the  disposition of the suit.
section_title: Appendix II: Additional Information on Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Suits, Fiscal Years 2005-2015
paragraphs: Section 4 deadline suits include citizen suits filed against the U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service  (NMFS), to compel compliance with statutory deadlines for certain actions  under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Section 4 of the act  includes statutory deadlines for the Services to complete certain  mandatory actions, including making findings on petitions to list or delist  species, designating or revising critical habitat, and conducting 5-year  status reviews of listed species. Table 7 provides information on the  taxonomic groups of species involved in the Section 4 deadline suits filed  during fiscal years 2005 through 2015. Table 8 provides information on  the distribution of the species managed by FWS and NMFS as well as  distribution by each of the agency’s respective regions. Table 9 provides  information on the number of actions involved in the Section 4 deadline  suits by agency.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Alyssa M. Hundrup (Assistant  Director), Carolyn Blocker, Ellen Fried, Cindy Gilbert, Richard Johnson,  Michael Meleady, Sara Sullivan, and Manuel Valverde made key  contributions to this report.