Search

The Department of the Interior's (Interior) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is generally required to use the best available scientific information when making key decisions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Controversy has surrounded whether former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald may have inappropriately influenced ESA decisions by basing decisions on political factors rather than scientific data. Interior directed the Service to review ESA decisions to determine which decisions may have been unduly influenced. ESA actions include, among others, 90-day petition findings, 12-month listing or delisting findings, and recovery planning. The Service distributed informal guidance in May 2005 on the processing of 90-day petitions. Recovery plans generally must include recovery criteria that, when met, would result in the species being delisted. GAO examined three separate issues: (1) what types of decisions, if any, were excluded from the Service's review of decisions that may have been inappropriately influenced; (2) to what extent the Service's May 2005 informal guidance affected 90-day petition findings; and (3) to what extent the Service has, before delisting species, met recovery criteria. GAO interviewed Service staff, surveyed Service biologists, and reviewed delisting rules and recovery plans. Interior did not provide comments in time for them to be included in this testimony. Several types of decisions were excluded from the Service's review of decisions that may have been inappropriately influenced. Using the following selection criteria, the Service identified eight ESA decisions for potential revision: (1) whether Ms. MacDonald influenced the decision directly, (2) was the scientific basis of the decision compromised, and (3) did the decision significantly change and result in a potentially negative impact on the species. The Service excluded (1) decisions made by Interior officials other than Ms. MacDonald, (2) policy decisions that limited the application of science, and (3) decisions that were changed but not significantly or to the point of negative impact on the species. The Service's May 2005 informal guidance had no substantive effect on 90-day petition findings. In May 2005, Service headquarters distributed a guidance document via e-mail to endangered-species biologists that could have been interpreted as instructing them to use additional information collected to evaluate a 90-day petition only to refute statements made therein. GAO's survey of 90-day petition findings issued by the Service from 2005 through 2007 found that biologists used additional information collected to evaluate petitions to both support and refute claims made in the petitions, as applicable, including during the 18-month period when the May 2005 informal guidance was being used. However, GAO found that the Service faces various other challenges in processing petitions, such as making decisions within 90 days and... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In fiscal year 2007, more than 150 million cattle, sheep, and other animals destined for human consumption were slaughtered in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for enforcing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), which mandates that animals are handled and slaughtered humanely. GAO reported on USDA's efforts to enforce HMSA in 2004 (Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges, GAO-04-247). More broadly, GAO has also issued many reports that address federal oversight of the U.S. food safety system. This testimony focuses on (1) GAO's 2004 report on the frequency and scope of reported HMSA violations and enforcement actions by USDA, (2) information on trends in staffing and funding for USDA food inspections, and (3) information on overall federal oversight of food safety. To provide this new information, GAO analyzed personnel and funding data from USDA and the Office of Management and Budget, and interviewed USDA food safety inspection officials. In January 2004, GAO reported that incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to determine the frequency and scope of HMSA violations, inspectors did not always document violations of the act, and they did not consistently document the scope and severity of each incident. GAO also reported that enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act were inconsistent, and that USDA was not using consistent criteria to determine when to suspend plant operations in cases of serious or repeated violations. The Congress has urged USDA to report annually on trends in compliance with humane slaughter methods. Such public reporting can enhance transparency, but USDA's most recent report was in March 2003 and relied on incomplete data. For example, that report said very few infractions were for inhumane treatment, but GAO found that at least one-fourth of the infractions were for ineffective stunning which fails to meet humane standards. USDA has taken actions to address the recommendations GAO made in 2004 about oversight of HMSA. However, GAO has not evaluated the effectiveness of these actions. USDA faces resource challenges that may make it difficult for it to enforce HMSA and ensure the safety of the food supply. Although USDA's budget for food safety-related activities has increased since 1988, staffing for these activities has declined from its highest level in 1995. Agency officials noted the overall decline is due, in part, to consolidation in the meat industry, resulting in fewer facilities. In 2004, GAO found that USDA lacked detailed information on how much time its inspectors spend on humane handling and slaughter activities, making it difficult to determine if the number of inspectors is adequate. USDA has taken actions to address most of GAO's recommendations for assessing its resource needs for HMSA, but GAO has... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflict over the use of our nation's natural resources, along with increased ecological problems, has led land managers to seek cooperative means to resolve natural resource conflicts and problems. Collaborative resource management is one such approach that communities began using in the 1980s and 1990s. A 2004 Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation encourages such efforts. GAO was asked to determine (1) experts' views on collaborative resource management, (2) how selected collaborative efforts have addressed conflicts and improved resources, and (3) challenges that agencies face as they participate in such efforts and how the Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed them. GAO reviewed experts' journal articles, studied seven collaborative groups, and interviewed group members and federal and other public officials. Experts generally view collaborative resource management that involves public and private stakeholders in natural resource decisions as an effective approach for managing natural resources. Several benefits can result from using collaborative resource management, including reduced conflict and litigation and improved natural resource conditions, according to the experts. A number of collaborative practices, such as seeking inclusive representation, establishing leadership, and identifying a common goal among the participants have been central to successful collaborative management efforts. The success of these groups is often judged by whether they increase participation and cooperation or improve natural resource conditions. Many experts also note that there are limitations to the approach, such as the time and resources it takes to bring people together to work on a problem and reach a decision. Most of the seven collaborative resource management efforts GAO studied in several states across the country were successful in achieving participation and cooperation among their members and improving natural resource conditions. In six of the cases, those involved were able to reduce or avoid the kinds of conflicts that can arise when dealing with contentious natural resource problems. All the efforts, particularly those that effectively reduced or avoided conflict, used at least several of the collaborative practices described by the experts. For example, one effort obtained broad community representation and successfully identified a common goal of using fire, after decades of suppression, to restore the health of a large grasslands area surrounding the community. Also, members of almost all the efforts studied said they have been able to achieve many of their goals for sustaining or improving the condition of specific natural resources. However, for most of these efforts no data were collected on a broad scale to show the effect of their work on overall resource conditions across a large area or landscape. Federal land and resource management agencies--the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A fundamental principle of military readiness is that the military must train as it intends to fight, and military training ranges allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to accomplish this goal. According to DOD officials, heightened focus on the application of environmental statutes has affected the use of its training areas. Since 2003, DOD has obtained exemptions from three environmental laws and has sought exemptions from three others. This report discusses the impact, if any, of (1) environmental laws on DOD's training activities and military readiness, (2) DOD's use of statutory exemptions from environmental laws on training activities, (3) DOD's use of statutory exemptions on the environment, and (4) the extent to which DOD has demonstrated the need for additional exemptions. To address these objectives, GAO visited 17 training locations; analyzed environmental impact and readiness reports; and met with officials at service headquarters, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, federal regulatory agencies, and nongovernmental environmental groups. Compliance with environmental laws has caused some training activities to be cancelled, postponed, or modified, and DOD has used adjustments to training events, referred to as "workarounds," to accomplish some training objectives while meeting environmental requirements. Some DOD trainers instruct units to pretend restricted training areas are holy grounds, mine fields, or other restricted areas in theater, simulating the need to avoid specific areas and locations when deployed. GAO's review of readiness data for active duty combat units did not confirm that compliance with environmental laws hampers overall military readiness. Since 2006, the Navy has twice invoked the Marine Mammal Protection Act exemption to continue using mid-frequency active sonar in training exercises that would otherwise have been prevented. DOD's exemption from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, authorizing the taking of migratory birds, eliminated the possibility of having to delay or cancel military training exercises, such as Navy live-fire training at the Farallon de Medinilla Target Range. The exemption to the Endangered Species Act, which precludes critical habitat designation on DOD lands, enables DOD to avoid potential training delays by providing greater autonomy in managing its training lands. On the basis of meetings with officials within and outside DOD and visits to 17 training ranges, GAO found no instances where DOD's use of exemptions from the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act has adversely affected the environment, but the impact of the Marine Mammal Protection Act exemption has not yet been determined. The services employ a variety of measures and conservation activities to mitigate the effects of training activities on the natural resources located on DOD lands. Additionally, regulatory officials GAO spoke to said DOD has done an effective job protecting and preserving... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perchlorate has been used for decades by the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the defense industry in manufacturing, testing, and firing missiles and rockets. Other uses include fireworks, fertilizers, and explosives. Perchlorate is readily dissolved and transported in water and has been found in groundwater, surface water, and soil across the country. Perchlorate emerged as a contaminant of concern because health studies have shown that it can affect the thyroid gland, which helps regulate the body's metabolism, and may cause developmental impairment in fetuses of pregnant women. In 2005, EPA set a reference dose of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb)--the exposure level not expected to cause adverse effect in humans. Today's testimony updates GAO's May 2005 report, Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results is Needed, GAO-05-462. It summarizes GAO's (1) compilation of the extent of perchlorate contamination in the U.S. and (2) review of peer-reviewed studies about perchlorate's health risks. GAO's 2005 report recommended that EPA work to track and monitor perchlorate detections and cleanup efforts. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its disagreement with this recommendation. GAO continues to believe such a system would better inform the public and others about perchlorate's presence in their communities. Perchlorate has been found at 395 sites in the U.S.--including 153 public drinking water systems--in concentrations ranging from 4 ppb to more than 3.7 million ppb. More than half the sites are in California and Texas, with the highest concentrations found in Arkansas, California, Texas, Nevada, and Utah. About 28 percent of sites were contaminated by defense and aerospace activities related to propellant manufacturing, rocket motor research and test firing, or explosives disposal. Federal and state agencies are not required to routinely report perchlorate findings to EPA, which does not track or monitor perchlorate detections or cleanup status. EPA recently decided not to regulate perchlorate in drinking water supplies pending further study. GAO reviewed 90 studies of health risks from perchlorate published from 1998 to 2005, and one-quarter indicated that perchlorate had an adverse effect on human health, and thyroid function in particular. In January 2005, the National Academy of Sciences also reviewed several studies and concluded that they did not support a clear link between perchlorate exposure and changes in the thyroid function. The academy did not recommend a drinking water standard but recommended additional research into the effect of perchlorate exposure on children and pregnant women. More recently, a large study by CDC scientists has identified adverse thyroid effects from perchlorate in women with low iodine levels that are found in about 36 percent of U.S. women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Clean Air Acts authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to treat eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as a state (referred to as TAS) for implementing and managing environmental programs on Indian lands. Some states are concerned that tribes receiving authority to manage these programs may set standards that exceed the state standards and hinder states' economic development. GAO was asked to report on the (1) extent to which EPA has followed its processes for reviewing and approving tribal applications for TAS and program authorization under the three acts, (2) programs EPA uses to fund tribal environmental activities and the amount of funds provided to tribes between fiscal years 2002 and 2004, and (3) types of disagreements between parties over EPA's approval of TAS status and program authorization and methods used to address these disagreements. EPA generally followed its established processes for reviewing and approving tribal requests for TAS and program authority under the three acts, according to GAO's analysis of approved requests. However, the review time for approving these requests generally took from about 1 year to more than 4 years. In addition, nearly all of the requests currently under review were submitted more than 1 year ago. Key factors contributing to the lengthy reviews include the multiple reviews required by the agency's regional and headquarters offices, a lack of emphasis within the agency to complete the reviews in a timely manner, and turnover of tribal and EPA staff. Moreover, EPA has not developed a written strategy that establishes overall time frames for reviewing requests. EPA officials agreed that more could be done to improve the timeliness of the review process but said that complex issues--including evolving Indian case law and jurisdictional issues--may have contributed to the lengthy reviews. Furthermore, EPA's review process is not always transparent on the status of tribes' TAS requests. Lack of transparency limits tribes' understanding of what issues may be delaying EPA's approval and what actions, if any, may be needed to address the issues. EPA provided Indian tribes about $360 million in grants to fund a broad range of tribal environmental activities from fiscal years 2002 through 2004. About half of these funds were distributed through two acts: the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act (about $114 million)--to help build capacity to administer environmental programs--and the Clean Water Act (about $66 million)--to help prevent and reduce water pollution. Since 1986, when Congress began amending the three environmental acts to allow TAS for tribes, disagreements over land boundaries and environmental standards have arisen between tribes, states, and others. Disagreements have been addressed through litigation, collaboration, and federal laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Economic Development Administration (EDA) Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P. L. 108-373) included a requirement that GAO evaluate grants made by EDA for the economic development of brownfield sites. More than 450,000 brownfield sites--properties where redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination--are scattered across the United States. This report discusses specifics of grants made by EDA at brownfields sites, including (1) the types, extent, and amount of EDA funds used for remediation activities; (2) the environmental standards and agencies involved; and (3) the economic development activities, standards, and impact. Remediation activities conducted at EDA-funded brownfield sites appeared to be incidental to the purpose of the overall project and most often consisted of the removal and disposal of asbestos containing materials, underground storage tanks, or lead-based paint. We estimate that remediation activities were conducted at 54 percent of EDA-funded brownfield sites from fiscal year 1998 through 2004. Overall, we estimate that EDA used $4.8 million or about 1.4 percent of its grant funds to pay for remediation activities at 28 percent of the brownfield sites during this period. Grantees, former property owners, or other agencies generally were responsible for most environmental remediation costs at these sites. EDA regional environmental officers prepare environmental assessments to document a project's compliance with federal environmental requirements. In three of six EDA regional offices, we noted that the regional environmental officer routinely recommended various types of special conditions be added to grant awards concerning the remediation of hazardous substances that provide more specific assurance on a project's compliance with environmental standards. EDA requires grant recipients to certify that contractors will comply with applicable environmental requirements and works with federal, state, and local environmental agencies to ensure compliance. EDA grants to brownfield sites most often funded infrastructure improvements, such as upgrades to water and sewer lines, construction of streets and curbs, or installation of signage and lighting. EDA evaluates proposed projects competitively based on standard guidelines that emphasize increased numbers of relatively high-skill, high-wage jobs or private sector investment; strong leadership and project management experience; and matching funds from local governments or nonprofits. Data were not available on the reported economic development impact for most of the grants that GAO reviewed. Where data were available, the reported economic development data varied significantly when compared with initial project estimates for some grants. In some instances, permanent jobs or private sector investment estimates for proposed projects did not appear to be verified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous invasive species have been introduced into U.S. waters via ballast water discharged from ships and have caused serious economic and ecologic damage. GAO reported in 2002 that at least 160 nonnative aquatic species had become established in the Great Lakes since the 1800s--one-third of which were introduced in the past 30 years by ballast water and other sources. The effects of such species are not trivial; the zebra mussel alone is estimated to have caused $750 million to $1 billion in costs between 1989 and 2000. Species introductions via ballast water are not confined to the Great Lakes, however. The environment and economy of the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and other U.S. waters have also been adversely affected. The federal government has been taking steps since 1990 to implement programs to prevent the introduction of invasive species from ships' ballast water discharges. However, species introductions are continuing. This testimony discusses the legislative and regulatory history of ballast water management and identifies some of the issues that pose challenges for the federal government's program for preventing the introduction of invasive species via ships' ballast water. Congress recognized ballast water as a serious problem in 1990 with passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, legislation intended to help reduce the number of species introductions in the Great Lakes. A reauthorization of this law in 1996, the National Invasive Species Act, elevated ballast water management to a national level. As directed by the legislation, the federal government has promulgated several regulations requiring certain ships to take steps, such as exchanging their ballast water in the open ocean to flush it of potentially harmful organisms, to reduce the likelihood of species invasions via ballast water. Initially these regulations applied only to certain ships entering the Great Lakes; now they apply to certain ships entering all U.S. ports. In addition to these domestic developments, the United Nation's International Maritime Organization has recently adopted a convention on ballast water management that could affect the global fleet. Since 1998, Coast Guard data show that compliance with existing ballast water exchange requirements has generally been high. However, key agencies and stakeholders recognize that the current ballast water exchange program is not a viable long-term approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water discharges. The primary reasons for this are that: (1) many ships are exempt from current ballast water exchange requirements, (2) the Coast Guard has not established alternate discharge zones that could be used by ships unable to conduct ballast water exchange for various reasons, and (3) ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing or killing potentially invasive species. Developers are pursuing technologies to provide more reliable alternatives to ballast water exchange, some of which show promise. However, development of such technologies and their eventual use to meet ballast water regulatory requirements face many challenges including the daunting technological task of developing large scale water treatment systems that ships can accommodate, and the lack of a federal discharge standard that would provide a target for developers to aim for in terms of treatment efficiency. As a result, ballast water exchange is still the only approved method for treating ballast water despite the concerns with this method's effectiveness. Consequently, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to the introduction of invasive species via ships' ballast water. State governments and others have expressed frustration over the seemingly slow progress the federal government has made on more effectively protecting U.S. waters from future species invasions via ballast water. As a result, several states have passed legislation that authorizes procedures for managing ballast water that are stricter than federal regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Invasive species--harmful, nonnative plants, animals, and microorganisms--are found throughout the United States and cause damage to crops, rangelands, waterways, and other ecosystems that is estimated to cost in the billions of dollars annually. In addition to their economic costs, invasive species can have a devastating effect on natural areas, where they have strangled native plants, taken over wetland habitats, crowded out native species, and deprived waterfowl and other species of food sources. Scientists, academicians, and industry leaders have all recognized invasive species as one of the most serious environmental threats of the twenty-first century. More specifically, conservation biologists ranked invasive species as the second most serious threat to endangered species after habitat destruction. In June 2003, GAO testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water concerning invasive species issues reported in our October 2002 report. We also provided testimony on the partial results of our spring 2003 survey of state agencies involved in efforts to address invasive species and members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). This report provides the final results of our survey and focuses on state perspectives on (1) gaps in, or problems with, federal legislation addressing invasive species, (2) barriers to managing invasive species, (3) effective leadership structures for addressing invasive species, and (4) integrating federal aquatic and terrestrial invasive species legislation and the potential gains and drawbacks of such legislation. State officials identified several legislative gaps or problems with existing legislation intended to address invasive species. A key gap noted in legislation addressing both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species is the lack of requirements for controlling invasive species that are already established or widespread. State officials said that if there is no federal requirement, there is often little money available to combat a species and that such a requirement would raise the priority for responding to it. Also, over one-half of the state officials responding to our survey said that international trade agreements make it difficult to regulate products that may introduce invasive species because, for example, the trade agreements do not consider invasive species. In addition, over one-half of the state officials who responded to questions about legislation on aquatic invasive species identified gaps with ballast water requirements. State officials also identified several barriers that make managing invasive species difficult. The barrier that state officials identified most frequently was the lack of federal funding for state invasive species efforts. In addition, state officials were concerned about insufficient public education and outreach efforts as well as the lack of control measures and cost-effective controls for invasive species. State officials' opinions on effective federal leadership structures for managing invasive species varied. State officials most frequently identified the National Invasive Species Council (Council) specifically authorized in legislation as an effective leadership structure for managing invasive species, although many state officials thought that continuing with the Council as currently established by executive order would also be effective. While the Executive Director of the Council told us that they have had adequate authority to carry out the responsibilities set forth in the executive order, she noted that clear legislative authority would strengthen their efforts. Similarly, officials from the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and Environmental Protection Agency who are departmental liaisons to the Council, noted that legislative authority, depending on how it was structured, could be useful in carrying out the responsibilities of the Council. Fewer state officials identified having a single federal agency responsible for all invasive species or separate federal agencies responsible for aquatic and terrestrial species as effective structures. State officials' views also varied on whether to integrate federal legislation on aquatic invasive species with legislation on terrestrial invasive species. The greatest number of state officials responding to our survey were in favor of integrating legislation, but the margin compared with those who did not favor integration was relatively small. Many state officials indicated that the possible gains of integrated legislative authority would be an increased focus on invasive species pathways, as opposed to specific species, and increased coordination between federal agencies and states. The possible drawbacks most often identified by state officials included concerns that a single piece of legislation would not be able to address all possible situations dealing with invasive species, and that aquatic and terrestrial invasive species programs would have to compete for scarce resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule changing the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) program--a key means to protect public health and enhance air quality--has been under scrutiny by the Congress, industry, environmental groups, state and local air quality agencies, and the courts. GAO was asked to determine the basis of EPA's conclusions that (1) the rule's economic impacts would not be significant enough to merit a detailed analysis and (2) the NSR program, prior to the rule, discouraged some energy efficiency projects. GAO, among other things, reviewed EPA's analysis of the rule and its impacts, as well as guidance from EPA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on analyzing such impacts. GAO also met with industry and environmental stakeholders. Consistent with agency guidance, EPA used a limited screening analysis that relied on staff's professional judgment and public comments from earlier reform proposals to conclude that the final rule would decrease emissions and health risks and not impose significant costs. EPA determined that neither the rule's benefits nor its costs would exceed a $100 million threshold that triggers requirements to conduct a more comprehensive assessment. EPA issued the rule to streamline the NSR permitting process and provide flexibility to industry. For example, the rule provides a mechanism for companies to develop plantwide emissions limits, which would allow them to make changes in one part of a facility's operations as long as they offset emissions increases with decreases elsewhere within the facility. While OMB agreed with EPA's conclusion that the rule would not have significant economic effects, it determined that the rule was significant for policy reasons. Therefore, OMB asked EPA if it could better quantify the rule's potential impacts, but the agency lacked the necessary data to do so. EPA lacked comprehensive data on the program's economic impacts, and could not predict how many facilities would use the rule's optional provisions. Several states and environmental groups disagree with EPA's conclusions, claiming that it will enable facilities to increase their emissions. These parties have filed suit against EPA challenging the rule and also have petitioned EPA to reconsider the rule. We did not identify any comprehensive assessments that contradicted or supported EPA's conclusions or the assertions of those who oppose the rule. Because of the data limitations, it was not possible to verify EPA's conclusions about the rule's effects. Because it lacked comprehensive data, EPA relied on anecdotes from the four industries it believes are most affected by NSR to conclude that the NSR program (prior to the rule) discouraged some energy efficiency projects, such as upgrades to industrial boilers, including some that would have decreased emissions. Because the information is anecdotal, EPA's findings do not necessarily represent the program's effects across the industries subject to the program. Several environmental groups disputed EPA's findings. One such group said that factors other than NSR, such as economic downturns, discouraged the projects. Furthermore, EPA's conclusion that some projects would have decreased emissions assumed that facilities would not increase production after performing the projects. However, according to EPA and the executive director of an industry group, companies often expand production after implementing energy efficiency projects because it is advantageous to maximize production at the most efficient facilities. Such expansions could increase emissions and related health risks, although EPA asserts that this would be offset by decreased production and emissions at less efficient facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter contains GAO's response to questions for the record from the House Committee on Armed Services' May 1, 2003, hearing on "The Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act." Congressmen Neil Abercrombie and Sylvestre Reyes submitted the questions. GAO outlined various examples illustrating how compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act have affected military training on various bases. GAO stated that Department of Defense (DOD) has not made adequate efforts to assess the extent to which military readiness has been affected by compliance with these environmental statutes. GAO also gave its opinion on DOD's recent proposal to grant certain government agencies broad based exemptions from existing law. GAO felt that Congress should take an active role in overseeing these efforts. GAO also stated that DOD does not have the needed infrastructure in place to efficiently integrate its capital planning process with the department's program goals and mission. GAO also suggested that Congress establish additional safeguards to ensure the fair, merit-based, transparent, and accountable implementation of DOD's proposed National Security Personnel System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires federal agencies to examine the impact of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations and to solicit the ideas and comments of such entities for this purpose. Specifically, whenever agencies are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, the act requires agencies to prepare an initial and a final regulatory flexibility analysis. However, those analytical requirements do not apply if the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 was enacted to strengthen the protections for small entities, and some of the requirements of that legislation are built on this significant impact determination. Although both of these reform initiatives have clearly affected how federal agencies regulate, their full promise has not been realized. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not define what Congress meant by the terms "significant economic impact" and "substantial number of small entities" and does not give any entity the authority or responsibility to define them governmentwide. As a result, agencies have had to construct their own definitions, and those definitions vary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program is intended to ensure that the nation's waters meet water quality standards. GAO reports on its recent analysis of economic and compliance issues associated with two recently proposed rulemakings by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intended to strengthen its TMDL program. TMDLs are used to restore water quality by identifying how much pollution a body of water can receive and still meet its standards. The amount of pollution entering the water is then reduced to that level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the economic and compliance issues associated with two proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to clean up polluted waters, focusing on: (1) the reasonableness of EPA's economic analyses for the two proposed regulations; and (2) whether EPA's determinations under the Unfunded Mandated Reform Act of 1995 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act were adequately supported. GAO noted that: (1) there were limitations with EPA's economic analyses of the proposed regulations for the total maximum daily load (TMDL) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs that raise questions about their reasonableness and about the determinations that EPA has based on them; (2) the outcomes of the analyses were heavily influenced by a number of key assumptions; (3) in the case of the TMDL program, for example, EPA assumed that states are essentially in full compliance with current regulations, or will be as a result of existing statutory and regulatory requirements; (4) EPA estimated only the costs that would result from the new requirements in the proposed regulations; (5) however, compliance with existing TMDL regulations has been problematic, and future compliance in the absence of the proposed regulation is uncertain; (6) GAO found similar uncertainties with key "baseline" assumptions that affect the cost estimates associated with the proposed NPDES regulation; (7) the key water quality data available to EPA to identify the number of waters not meeting standards and the number of TMDLs that will be needed are incomplete, inconsistently collected by states, and sometimes based on outdated and unconfirmed sources; (8) as a result of these limitations, EPA's cost estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty; (9) EPA provided little information on the benefits associated with the proposed regulations; (10) without information on both costs and benefits, it is difficult to confirm that the regulation is economically justified; (11) given the uncertainties surrounding EPA's cost estimates, GAO disagrees with EPA that EPA's analyses adequately supported its determination under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 that more detailed analyses of costs, benefits, and alternatives were not needed for either of the proposed regulations; (12) however, in the case of requirements for additional analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, case law supports EPA's determination that because its proposed revisions to both regulations do not directly regulate small entities, additional analyses were not required; (13) several court decisions have ruled in analogous situations that agencies' regulations were not subject to the Flexibility Act's requirements for additional analysis; and (14) courts have held that where a proposed regulation does not impose any regulatory requirements at all on any entities, but instead expands agency authority to take future discretionary action, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program has been criticized for a number of problems, including the pace and the cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites, the agency's approach for holding waste contributors liable for cleaning up sites, and the overall effectiveness of the program. In 1993, EPA began implementing a series of 62 administrative reforms. GAO was asked to review EPA's reforms to determine their demonstrated results and evaluate the performance measures the agency uses to gauge these results and to identify legislative changes to the program that either the agency or key stakeholders believe are still necessary. Overall, EPA and stakeholders agree that the Superfund program has improved and the administrative reforms have collectively contributed to this improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]