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. A Variety of Plaintiffs Filed 141 Deadline Suits Involving 1,441 Species, Mostly Against FWS

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. 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

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. 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. The Majority of Deadline Suits Were Resolved through Negotiated Settlement Agreements Establishing Schedules for the Services to Complete Section 4 Actions

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and  Justice each provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. Appendix I: List of Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Suits, Fiscal Years 2005- 2015

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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.