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]

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 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]

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]