Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized
Published: 2002-06-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was enacted to conserve plant and animal species facing extinction as well as their habitats. The act requires that at-risk species that may be candidates for listing and conservation efforts be identified and listed as threatened or endangered, critical habitat that requires special management be identified, proposed projects that could harm the listed species be mitigated, and plans to improve the status of listed species until they no longer need protection be developed and implemented. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) established an endangered species program within its ecological services program to implement the requirements of the act. The Service budgets separately allocates its endangered species program funds by distinct subcategories corresponding to the program areas of recovery, consultation, candidate conservation, listing, and landowner incentives. The Service maintains these allocations by program area as it distributes funds from headquarters to its regional offices and again as the regional offices distribute funds to their field offices. GAO's survey results showed that in fiscal year 2001, of the total time field staff spent on specific endangered species program activities, consultation accounted for 42 percent and recovery accounted for 28 percent. The remaining 30 percent was spent on candidate conservation, landowner incentives, and listing. These percentages do not reflect the time field staff spent on general endangered species program activities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to help conserve  plant and animal species facing extinction as well as their habitats. The act,  as amended, requires the Department of the Interior to identify at-risk  species that may be candidates for listing and work to conserve them  (candidate conservation); when warranted, list species as threatened or  endangered and identify their critical habitat—habitat essential to the  species’ conservation—that requires special management (listing); work  with groups whose proposed projects could harm the listed species to  mitigate such harm (consultation); and develop and implement plans to  improve the status of listed species until they no longer need protection  (recovery). Interior delegated its responsibility for the Endangered Species  Act to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), which established an  endangered species program within its ecological services program to  implement the requirements of the act. The Service, a decentralized agency,  is organized into seven regions, each with a regional office managing a  number of field offices. Some field staff divide their time between this  program and other programs, such as environmental contaminants, carried  out by the ecological services field offices. In fiscal year 2001, the Service  received $210 million for ecological services, of which $121 million was for  the endangered species program. Of the endangered species funding,  recovery received $59.8 million, or almost 50 percent, of the program’s  funds; consultation, $42.8 million; candidate conservation, $7.1 million;  listing, $6.3 million; and landowner incentives, $5 million.
For many years, environmental groups, landowners, federal agencies, and  developers have voiced concerns about how the Service has implemented  the endangered species program. Specific areas of concern include the  pace of recovery; the Service’s  performance in meeting certain of the act’s  requirements—for example, reviewing petitions for listing species within  90 days of their receipt; and the Service’s interpretation of certain aspects  of the act related to critical habitat designation. These concerns have  increasingly led to litigation and court orders that, according to Service  officials, have influenced how the Service does its work. The Congress also  has had concerns about the program and has not reauthorized or amended  the act since 1988, even though more than 50 reauthorizing or amending  bills have been introduced since 1995.
Given these concerns and your oversight responsibility, you asked us to  review several aspects of the Service’s implementation of the endangered  species program. Accordingly, this report provides information on (1) how  the Service budgets and allocates its endangered species program funds  and (2) how field office staff spent their time in the endangered species  program in fiscal year 2001. In addition, in performing our work, we  identified certain factors that affected the implementation of the  endangered species program. Our report highlights the nature and extent of  those factors as well.
To collect information on program activities in the field, we asked all seven  regional offices about their funding allocation methods and workload. To  obtain more detail on field office activities, we conducted two surveys:  (1)  a survey of supervisors at the 60 field offices that implement the  endangered species program (100 percent response) and (2) a survey of the  767 scientific and technical staff (hereafter referred to as field staff) who  worked in the field on the program in fiscal year 2001 (83 percent  response). Our survey results are in appendixes I and II, and highlights of  selected national and regional information are in appendix III. We  discussed our survey results with regional and headquarters officials to  obtain their views on the factors that drove their workload and actions they  are taking to improve program implementation. More detailed information  on our scope and methodology is contained in appendix IV.
Finally, during the course of our work, we became aware of several legal  services contracts awarded in a few field offices that were funded through  the endangered species program. We questioned whether the field offices  had the authority to enter into the contracts and whether the use of these  program funds was proper. Interior's Solicitor advised us that the Service  did not have the required authority to enter into these legal services  contracts, but did not address whether the funds could be used to pay for  legal services. We have concluded that since the Office of the Solicitor  receives a specific appropriation for employing attorneys and doing legal  work, use of endangered species program funds for legal services contracts  was improper. The results of our work on this issue will be conveyed to you  through separate correspondence.
We conducted our review from April 2001 through March 2002 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prevent the  extinction of threatened or endangered plant and animal species. The act  defines a threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in  the foreseeable future; and an endangered species as one that faces  extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Under the act,  the Secretary of the Interior is to determine whether any species is  threatened or endangered as a result of such factors as the present or  threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;  overuse for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;  or disease or predation. The act also prohibits the “taking” of a listed  species.
During the 29 years since the Endangered Species Act was enacted, the  Fish and Wildlife Service has listed more than 1,200 species in the United  States as threatened or endangered. Of these, 32 have since been delisted,  13 as a result of recovery efforts. The other 19 were removed from the  threatened or endangered species list because they became extinct (7) or  were no longer deemed to be at risk because further scientific analysis  found evidence of other information that made listing unnecessary (12). In  addition, as of September 30, 2001, the Service was in the process of listing  35 more species and had identified 236 candidate species—species that  qualify for listing but for which the listing process has not yet begun  because of resource limitations or higher priorities for other species.
In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $1.26 billion for the Fish and  Wildlife Service. Of this amount, $121 million was directed to the  endangered species program, which is one of three subactivities within the  ecological services activity of the resource management appropriation (see  fig. 1). In addition, the Service received additional funds from other federal  agencies through reimbursable agreements. For example, the Service  receives funds from Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and the  Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service to conduct consultations  on fire programs.
For fiscal year 2001, the Service’s $121 million for the endangered species  program was divided into five separate budgets that corresponded with the  program areas, as shown in table 1.
The Service administers the endangered species program through its  headquarters office, seven regional offices, and 60 of its 78 ecological  services field offices throughout the country that carry out endangered  species program activities. Figure 2 shows the seven regions and the  locations of the regional offices; appendix IV lists the 60 field offices we  surveyed.
Headquarters officials set overall priorities for the endangered species  program, develop policy and guidance, and allocate funding to the regions.  Regional office staff perform similar functions for their field offices.  Regional directors make most decisions on how to spend endangered  species funds within each program area. However, the Service director  decides whether to list a species as threatened or endangered and whether  to issue regulations (e.g., formal guidance on requirements for habitat  conservation planning). The regional offices are responsible for managing  their field offices’ program activities. They assess office operations,  prepare and implement work plans, hold meetings to communicate work  priorities to field offices throughout the year, and track field office  activities through frequent telephone conversations and/or the creation and  maintenance of regional databases to supplement national tracking  systems.
The field offices are responsible for implementing the program and setting  priorities for projects they will undertake. For example, field staff develop  partnerships and agreements with landowners for conservation activities,  consult with federal agencies on proposed actions that may affect a listed  species, and develop and implement recovery plans for listed species. In  addition, other programs within the Service (e.g., fisheries, refuges, and  wildlife programs) and state, federal, and private sector partners carry out  activities that contribute to the Service’s ultimate mission of species  recovery.
section_title: Endangered Species Program Funds Are Tied to Specific Program Areas at Each Organizational Level
paragraphs: Funding for the endangered species program is tied directly to the major  program areas (recovery, consultation, candidate conservation, listing, and  landowner incentives—for fiscal years 1999-2001 only) and kept segregated  by these program areas at each organizational level. The Service allocates  funds to its regional offices in two phases. For each program area, the  Service first distributes monies that were congressionally targeted for  specific endangered species projects and any other region-specific funds  (e.g., cost of living increases). The Service then allocates the remaining  amount to the regional offices using program-specific formulas that take  into consideration the number of candidate and listed species found within  each region and their habitats. The regional offices maintain these separate  budgets when allocating funds to the field offices on the basis of staff and  workload considerations.
subsections: section_title: Service Headquarters Budgets and Allocates Its Endangered Species Program Funds by Program Area
paragraphs: Congress provides funding for the endangered species program through the  resource management appropriations account. The appropriations  committee conference report provides direction for funding in the separate  program areas. The Service maintains these distinct program area budgets  as it allocates funds to the regional office, doing so in two steps. First, each  regional office receives funds for congressional directives—specific  amounts for projects or other entities outlined in appropriations committee  conference reports. For example, for recovery in fiscal year 2001, the  conference report designated $5 million in matching grants for Pacific  salmon conservation and restoration in Washington State and more than $2  million for recovery for specific listed species, including the gray wolf,  Lahontan cutthroat trout, and black capped vireo. In addition, each region  receives funds for specific purposes such as cost of living increases and  “capability funding”—a set amount of funding that supports one to two  staff per program area to ensure that the regional office can maintain  expertise in each of the program areas.
Second, the Service allocates the remaining funds for each program area to  the regional offices according to specific formulas generally based on the  number and complexity of candidate, proposed, and listed species found in  the region or for which the regional office has lead responsibility. These  formulas reflect the fact that not all species require the same level of  funding or effort in order to achieve their conservation and recovery. The  formulas are based on weighting factors that are assigned to species by  assessing the species type (animal or plant) and its range and habitat type  (e.g., migratory, aquatic, endemic). As table 2 shows, the regions vary in the  number of species for which they have lead responsibility.
To some extent, the Service also considers the program area’s  characteristics when it allocates funds to the regional offices. For example,  in the consultation program area, the Service follows two methodologies  when allocating funds:  (1) funds for consultations with federal agencies  and habitat conservation planning with nonfederal groups are allocated  according to the weighted number of candidate, proposed, and listed  species found in each region, and (2) a set amount every year ($2 million in  fiscal year 2001) is allocated across regional offices for implementing and  monitoring habitat conservation plans based on specific formulas that take  into account such factors as the size of the planning area and the number of  participating partners.
In contrast, when allocating funds for listing, the Service considers a  priority list of different types of anticipated listing actions that is approved  by the director of the Service. At the top of the priority list are actions  required by court orders and settlement agreements, and emergency  listings. Other listing actions, such as preparing final rules for listing  species and responding to petitions to list species are of lower priority. In  fiscal year 2001, the Service could only fund listing actions responding to  specific court orders and settlement agreements. To allocate these funds,  Service headquarters officials estimated the average cost of listing actions  in each region and allocated a specified amount for each field office  responsible for carrying out the required actions. In its fiscal year 2002  budget justification, the Service stated that the listing program will  continue to be driven by litigation, largely over missed deadlines and the  Service’s “not prudent” determinations for designation of critical habitat for  listed species.  Table 3 presents the endangered species program  allocations to each region by program area for fiscal year 2001.
section_title: Regional Officials Reported Maintaining the Integrity of Program Area Budgets when Allocating Funds to Field Offices
paragraphs: According to Service officials, regional offices have the authority to  distribute program funds to the field offices, except for listing funds, which  are controlled by Service headquarters. Regional officials told us that they  maintain the integrity of the program area budgets when allocating funds to  the field offices. In allocating each program area budget, they retain only  enough funds to cover their fixed costs (e.g., salaries, travel, uniforms) and  program administration and implementation costs, such as those  associated with contracts let and projects led by the regional office.  Regional offices’ methods for allocating funds vary by region and by  program area but are all based on staffing levels; previous years’ funding  levels; and past or anticipated activities, such as the number of  consultations completed or the number of recovery plans in need of  completion. For example, Region 2 officials told us that they increased  consultation funding to one field office because of an historic and  continuing heavy consultation workload and funded additional positions in  another field office because of the need to consult on over 7,000 grazing  allotments and large water projects involving the San Juan, Rio Grande,  and Colorado Rivers. In contrast, Region 6 officials allocated recovery  funds primarily to those field offices working on large recovery programs  dealing with the Rocky Mountain wolf, the grizzly bear, and the Platte River  and Colorado River basin projects, among others.
section_title: Field Staff Reported Spending More Time on Consultation than on Other Program Areas
paragraphs: This section describes, for each program area, the relative amount of time  field staff reported spending on the major activities, the types and numbers  of activities, and the factors that influenced the workload.  Our survey  results indicated that consultation, which received less funding than  recovery, accounted for more staff time (42 percent) than recovery (28  percent) (see fig. 3). These percentages do not reflect the time field staff  spent on general endangered species program activities (see footnote 4).  Staff reported spending more time on consultation largely because they  had to meet statutory requirements and mandatory time frames associated  with these activities. Staff spent 10 percent of their time on the listing  program area, including adding new species to the threatened or  endangered species list and designating critical habitat. For these activities,  responding to litigation primarily drove the workload. Regional officials  cited the need for more guidance on designating critical habitat in order to  reduce the number of legal challenges to the Service’s critical habitat  designations, better defend those that are brought, and spend more time on  other listing activities.
subsections: section_title: The Consultation Program Area Accounted for the Largest Amount of Field Staff Time
paragraphs: The consultation program area comprises two main activities under the  Endangered Species Act—section 7 consultations with federal agencies  and section 10 habitat conservation planning activities with landowners.   Both section 7 consultations and section 10 habitat conservation planning  are initiated by applicants whose actions may affect a listed species. In the  case of formal section 7 consultations, the Service must respond within  statutory and regulatory time limits. The act establishes a time frame of 90  days to complete a formal consultation, unless the Service and the  applicant mutually agree to an extension. Regulations require the Service  to deliver a biological opinion within 45 days of the conclusion of formal  consultation. Similarly, in the case of habitat conservation planning, the  Service has limited control over the number of applicants requesting  assistance or the amount of technical assistance needed. While there are no  statutory time frames associated with section 10, all applicants expect  timely attention.
For fiscal year 2001, field staff reported spending 42 percent of their total  time devoted to the endangered species program on the consultation  program area. Staff spent about 80 percent of this time working with  federal agencies on section 7 consultations, which included over 46,000  informal and more than 1,000 formal consultations. They spent the other 20  percent of their time on habitat conservation planning, which included  working on more than 300 habitat conservation plans (HCPs) and  approving over 100 incidental take permits.  HCPs vary by the type of  applicant, the activities addressed, and the number of listed species  involved—from a single landowner to a state government, from half-acre  lots to many acres, from forestry and agricultural activities to beach  development, and from a single species to dozens of species.
Regions 1 and 2 accounted for more than 74 percent of the formal  consultations and more than 92 percent of habitat conservation plans  approved for incidental take permits, the majority of which involved  applicants who were individual landowners. Region 1 has seen a large  increase in section 7 consultations over the past 5 years as a result of (1)  litigation that required other federal agencies to consult with the Service,  and (2) an increase in interagency agreements, such as the Forest Service’s  National Fire Plan and the Department of Defense’s Integrated Natural  Resource Management Plans. Officials in Region 2 stated that in the past  several years, federal agencies that historically have not consulted with  them on certain activities have now entered into formal consultations on  these activities because of litigation.  They added that some consultations  on major river system projects (e.g., the Colorado and Rio Grande river  systems) have consumed large amounts of staff time because of the  projects’ size, complexity, and potential impact. Other regional variations  are shown in appendix III.
Over 50 percent of the field staff who carried out activities in the  consultation program area were concerned that they were not spending  enough time on (1) conducting fieldwork in order to determine whether  formal consultations were needed and (2) monitoring agency compliance  with the terms and conditions of biological opinions associated with these  consultations. Field staff reported spending only 2 percent of their  consultation time on fieldwork and only 2 percent on monitoring. Regional  and headquarters officials recognized the importance of monitoring the  terms and conditions of the biological opinions to ensure that the  agreements reached during consultation are being carried out. These  officials noted, however, that other, more pressing consultation work often  takes precedence over conducting fieldwork and monitoring activities.
Officials in all but one region agreed that consultation has taken staff time  away from recovery efforts. However, officials in several regions stated  that some consultation and recovery activities can be closely connected  because some recovery tasks are imbedded in consultation actions and in  broadly scoped habitat conservation plans that have a recovery focus.  Additionally, once a species is listed, the Service’s subsequent actions are  directed to its ultimate goal of recovery, and biologists work towards this  goal in all they do, according to regional officials. Region 6 officials were  concerned that the amount of time their field staff reported spending on  consultation might have been overstated because several biologists who  work solely on three recovery programs in their region were not included  in our survey. They suggested that if these biologists’ time had been  included, the region’s results would have shown a larger percentage of time  spent on recovery and therefore less on consultation. (We did not include  these biologists in our survey because they were not working in field  offices originally identified by the region as responsible for implementing  the endangered species program.)
Regional efforts to better address the increased consultation workload  include the development of a regional database that tracks consultations  and efforts to encourage more proactive land management practices that  avoid the taking of species and therefore minimize the need for formal  consultations and habitat conservation plans.
section_title: Recovery Activities Were Constrained by Other Program Area Priorities
paragraphs: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act requires the Service to develop  and implement recovery plans for listed species. Recovery plans identify  the strategies and conservation actions for recovering listed species, as  well as the population level and the habitat condition needed to restore the  species to a viable self-sustaining state. At that point, the Service can delist  the species. While the act does not specify certain actions or time frames to  develop and implement a recovery plan, the Service’s policy is to complete  the development of a plan within 2-½ years of the species’ listing date. Field  staff work with staff from other Service programs, such as refuges and  fisheries, and many public and private partners, including federal, state,  tribal, and local agencies and conservation organizations to develop and  implement recovery plans.
Of the time they devoted to the endangered species program, field staff  reported spending 28 percent of their time on the recovery program area.  Staff spent about 34 percent of their recovery time on developing recovery  plans; 62 percent on implementing, either themselves or through partners,  tasks included in final recovery plans; and 4 percent of their time on  delisting activities. Field office staff reported that they worked on  developing more than 100 recovery plans in fiscal year 2001 and  implementing over 800 (see footnote 10). Twenty percent of the field office  supervisors reported their offices worked towards the delisting of 21  species. During fiscal year 2001, the Aleutian Canada goose was officially  delisted. According to Service officials, because recovery activities do not  have strict statutory requirements or time frames, staff who would  normally focus on recovery efforts are frequently pulled from recovery  planning and implementation to work on higher priority work, such as  section 7 consultations and responses to litigation.
More than 54 percent of the field staff who carried out recovery efforts  were concerned that they could not spend enough time on activities more  directly associated with recovery, such as implementing specific tasks  included in recovery plans or monitoring the status of species. Regional  officials attributed this lack of direct involvement to the changing role of  field office staff in the recovery program area. Officials said that previously  field staff conducted “on the ground” fieldwork and now they largely  administer contracts and coordinate cooperative agreements with outside  parties that implement recovery efforts, such as monitoring the status of  listed species. In fiscal year 2001, the Service used 13 percent of its  recovery funds as grants and an additional amount, varying by region, to  obtain services from third parties. In addition, Service officials noted that  they use recovery funds to provide technical assistance to states as part of  an intergovernmental effort to conserve species required by section 6 of the  Endangered Species Act. Section 6 grants provide federal aid for states to  develop programs to conserve, monitor, and recover threatened and  endangered species. According to Service officials, these programs  contribute to species recovery and therefore costs associated with the  technical assistance provided by field office staff are an appropriate use of  recovery funds but leave less money available for more direct recovery  activities to be carried out by Service staff.
Regional officials were aware that staff are not able to spend as much time  on all aspects of recovery activities as they would like, and officials cited a  number of actions they are taking to improve their recovery efforts:  developing multi-species recovery plans, involving state and federal  agencies in recovery activities, setting priorities for specific recovery  projects for field offices, and requiring annual reports on field office  accomplishments. Additionally, the Service recently established a working  group to target select aspects of the recovery program for improvement.  For example, the group is revising recovery guidance to help improve the  efficiency and effectiveness of recovery planning—including assessing the  optimum number of stakeholders who should be involved in developing  recovery plans and increasing training on negotiation and communication  skills for recovery biologists. They are also planning a national workshop  for recovery staff at which they can share information, discuss best  practices, and disseminate new or updated guidance.
section_title: Staff Focused Candidate Conservation Efforts on Developing Agreements but Spent Little Time Monitoring and Evaluating Them
paragraphs: Candidate conservation activities are intended to protect at-risk species  and make their listing unnecessary. Each year, the Service reviews the  status of at-risk species, including assessing the magnitude and immediacy  of threats they face and decides if any species warrants listing. If listing is  warranted but higher priority tasks take precedence, then the species will  be placed on the candidate list. Staff also carry out conservation activities  for at-risk or candidate species. They identify landowners with these  species on their property and work with them to conserve habitat through  such means as candidate conservation agreements. These voluntary  agreements between the Service and one or more private or public  landowners (e.g., states, territories, federal agencies), establish measures  to stabilize and conserve species and specify how these measures will be  implemented and monitored. The Service views these early conservation  actions as critical for several reasons:  more conservation options may still  be available for at-risk species; early conservation efforts are more likely to  be successful; potential land use conflicts that may be caused by listing  may be avoided; and flexibility for landowners can be maintained.
For fiscal year 2001, field staff reported spending 13 percent of their total  time devoted to the endangered species program on candidate  conservation activities. Of this amount, they spent 26 percent of their time  assessing candidates for listing, 68 percent on conservation activities, and 5  percent monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of these activities. Field  staff reported developing 89 candidate conservation and other agreements  with landowners and helping to implement 45 agreements (see footnote  10). However, one field office supervisor noted that while his staff enter  into many conservation agreements with other partners, the field office  receives little or no money to help implement conservation measures  contained in the agreements and instead must rely on others to carry out  these habitat improvements.
Over 45 percent of staff carrying out candidate conservation activities  expressed concern about the limited amount of time they could spend on  these activities, including the monitoring of candidate conservation  agreements. Additionally, 57 percent of the field office supervisors—at  least one in each region—reported that their offices identified species that  could be candidates for listing but have not yet been listed because of  resource limitations or higher priorities, such as responding to litigation  and court orders.
section_title: Litigation Drove Listing Workload
paragraphs: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act requires the Service to list any  species that is at risk of extinction. Listing a species is the first step in  protecting it from extinction. Both the candidate assessment process  described in the previous section and a public petition process, which  allows any interested person to petition to add a species to the list, may  result in the Service proposing a species for listing. Within 90 days of  receiving a petition to list a species, the Service must determine whether  the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information to  indicate that listing may be warranted. If the Service determines the  petition presents such information, it reviews the species’ status and must  determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. It must make this  determination within 12 months of receiving the petition. If the petitioned  action is warranted, the Service will then publish a proposed rule for  comment in the Federal Register. Within a year of publishing the rule for  comment, the Service must issue a final rule to implement the listing action  or withdraw the proposed rule if the available evidence does not justify the  listing action. If the listing is warranted but other listing actions take  priority, such as an emergency listing for a species on the verge of  extinction, the species is placed on the candidate list for future action. The  Service must review candidate listings annually until it puts the species on  the threatened or endangered list or determines that the action is no longer  warranted.
Section 4 of the act also requires the Service to designate critical habitat “to  the maximum extent prudent” at the time it lists a species unless the  designation of critical habitat would not provide any further benefit to the  listed species or insufficient data exist on which to base the designation. In  the case of insufficient data, the Service has an additional 12 months to  gather data and make the designation.
Since fiscal year 1998, appropriations language has restricted the amount  of program funds that could be used for listing activities, including adding  new species to the threatened or endangered list and designating critical  habitat. For fiscal year 2001, the listing cap was $6.3 million. The listing cap  keeps other program area funds from being reprogrammed to address the  significant backlog of listing activities that have resulted from litigation,  court orders, and settlement agreements. The Service has been sued  primarily because it has missed statutory listing deadlines and because  litigants have challenged the Service’s decisions that it was “not prudent” to  designate critical habitat for many listed species because doing so provided  little or no additional conservation benefits to the species. According to the  Service, it has a substantial backlog of (1) listing petitions that it has not  had sufficient funds to review and complete and (2) critical habitat  designations that are now required because the court has held that past  “not prudent” determinations were invalid.
For fiscal year 2001, field staff reported spending 10 percent of their total  time devoted to the endangered species program on listing activities, with  51 percent of this time on adding new species to the threatened or  endangered species list and 49 percent spent on designating critical  habitats. In addition, 27 percent of field office supervisors reported that  their offices worked toward the listing of more than 40 species in fiscal  year 2001. According to the Service, it completed proposals for 14 listings  during this period. Sixty-five percent of field office supervisors reported  that their offices worked on 429 actions that contributed to the designation  of critical habitat for one or more species (see footnote 10) and finalized  critical habitat designations for 21 species in fiscal year 2001. According to  Service officials, all of these activities resulted from litigation, court orders,  or settlement agreements. Officials in Region 1 stated that the amount of  litigation challenging the merits of the Service’s listing and critical habitat  decisions has been increasing over the last 5 years and created a backlog of  court-ordered "rework" of previous decisions or actions. For example,  federal courts have recently ruled that the Service’s past decisions not to  designate critical habitat for listed species because it was “not prudent”  were inconsistent with the intent of the act. These rulings resulted in court  orders requiring the Service to designate critical habitat for many listed  species. Officials from Interior’s Office of the Solicitor and Service regional  officials told us that field staff now need more guidance from headquarters  to help them deal with critical habitat designation issues in a more  consistent manner and help avoid future litigation and rework.
The Service has stated that because listing activities have been driven by  court orders and settlements, staff have been unable to focus on listing  species at the greatest risk of extinction or to undertake a more balanced  listing program. A balanced program would respond to new listing  petitions, add new species to the threatened or endangered species list, and  designate critical habitat. The Service is currently revising its listing  priority guidance to better balance the listing program and eventually  reduce the backlog and plans to have the guidance finalized by the fall of  2002. In addition, in June 1999, the Service published a notice in the Federal  Register soliciting comments on its intention to develop guidance to clarify  the role of critical habitat in conserving endangered species. This notice  acknowledged the need for a more efficient and cost-effective process for  designating critical habitat because responding to critical habitat litigation  had significantly delayed other Service listing activities (e.g., responding to  listing petitions, proposing new listings for imperiled species). However,  after 3 years, critical habitat guidance has still not been issued. According  to the Service, work on critical habitat guidance has been delayed pending  Service efforts to finalize the listing priority guidance.
section_title: Landowner Incentives Focused on Financial Assistance and Incentives to Private Landowners
paragraphs: In fiscal years 1999 through 2001, the landowner incentives program  provided financial assistance and other incentives to private landowners  working with the Service to conduct endangered species conservation  activities on their property. For example, through a competitive selection  process, landowners were eligible to receive funding for fencing, planting,  or other habitat restoration activities on their land. Private landowners  who undertook voluntary conservation measures under certain agreements  with the Service (e.g., Safe Harbor Agreements) were assured that these  actions would not lead to additional restrictions under the endangered  species program in the future if the species were subsequently listed as  threatened or endangered. In fiscal year 2002, the landowner incentives  program was discontinued.
Field staff reported spending 6 percent of their total time devoted to the  endangered species program on landowner incentive activities in fiscal  year 2001. Of this total, staff spent 33 percent of their time coordinating  with landowners, 46 percent developing and administering landowner  agreements, and 21 percent monitoring the agreements. Field office staff  reported developing 107 agreements funded by the landowner incentive  program and also implementing 137 agreements under the program (see  footnote 10).
One field office supervisor described some of the activities associated with  this program area that created a significant workload for his staff. These  activities included sending letters of request for landowner participation,  reviewing and ranking proposals for financial assistance, supporting  regional office staff making award decisions, and monitoring results. One  regional official told us that field staff workload was increased by the need  to provide technical assistance to many landowners who knew very little  about conservation. A Service official acknowledged that the cost to  implement the landowner incentives program was partially borne by the  candidate conservation and recovery programs. He added that the Service  did not more fully fund this program area to cover technical support  because this incentive program contributed to the overall mission of  species recovery.
section_title: Survey Results Highlighted Other Factors That Had an Impact on Program Implementation
paragraphs: Our surveys of field office supervisors and their staff highlighted factors  that affected the implementation of the endangered species program. First,  staff reported that a lack of resources and a heavy workload made it more  difficult for staff to carry out their responsibilities. Second, staffs’ overall  satisfaction with the working conditions in their offices helped to  counterbalance resource constraints. Finally, our surveys indicated that  time charges reported by program area may not have reflected the work  actually being done (e.g., consultation work being charged to the recovery  program). Incorrect time charges could affect the Service’s ability to make  informed decisions about future program operations and resource needs.  Our survey did not measure how often or to what extent incorrect time  charges occurred.
subsections: section_title: Lack of Resources and Heavy Workload Adversely Affected Field Offices’ Ability to Effectively Carry Out Their Work
paragraphs: Field office supervisors in all regions reported that a lack of funds and  shortage of staff adversely affected their offices’ ability to conduct  activities for the endangered species program in fiscal year 2001. Seventy- three percent of field supervisors responded that a lack of funds and a  shortage of staff affected their ability to carry out endangered species  activities to a great or very great extent.  Additionally, officials in all the  regional offices reported that at least two of the five program areas  required more funds than headquarters allocated. Moreover, officials in  four of the regional offices reported that all the program areas were  inadequately funded. The consultation program area, more specifically,  section 7 consultations with federal agencies, was mentioned most  frequently as insufficiently funded.
Our surveys also indicated that the program’s heavy workload impeded  program implementation. Seventy-one percent of field office staff reported  that a heavy workload created competing priorities that made their work  take longer than it would normally have taken. One regional official  explained that when staff have to complete many high-priority tasks, they  often split their time among these tasks and thus may need more time to  complete each task because they cannot focus on one task at a time. All  regional officials agreed that their regions are faced with competing  priorities in many areas of the endangered species program. Some stated  that they are able to set priorities for the work within each of the program  areas. Others stated that priorities in one program area, such as  consultation, often pull staff away from other tasks, such as recovery. In  addition, almost 50 percent of the supervisors reported difficulties in  retaining field staff and cited heavy workload as the principal reason.
Almost all field office supervisors (80 percent) identified methods they  developed for addressing their heavy workload and carrying out activities  more efficiently. They most often cited consultations that were streamlined  (i.e., concurrent agency actions) and programmatic (i.e., multiple actions  on a program or regional basis). In fiscal year 2001, supervisors reported  that their staff worked on 187 streamlined and 272 programmatic  consultations (see footnote 10). Several supervisors noted that their offices  also developed form letters to respond to common requests, such as lists of  threatened and endangered species found in an area or for technical  assistance. Additionally, many supervisors described databases or tracking  systems their offices developed to track specific projects, consultations,  species, or other workload.
section_title: General Work Conditions Were Satisfactory for Most Field Staff
paragraphs: Despite the reported lack of resources and heavy workload, our surveys  indicated field staff were generally satisfied with the working conditions in  their offices. Field staff were generally satisfied with their ability to travel,  attend training courses, obtain access to other staff for knowledge sharing,  and obtain computer support, equipment and supplies. About 60 percent of  field staff were somewhat to very satisfied with their direct supervisor and  overall supervision of the field office. In addition, only 5 percent or less of  field office supervisors reported that working conditions were adversely  affected to a great or very great extent by a lack of appropriate staff skills  and/or expertise, personnel problems, or lack of money for training.  Appendix I provides the national results in more detail.
section_title: Surveys Indicated Some Incorrect Time Charges Were Reported
paragraphs: Incorrect reporting of time spent among the program areas could mask  how staff actually divided their time among these areas. Thirty-five percent  of field office supervisors reported that their office charged staff time to  another program area once funds in the relevant program area were  depleted. Our survey did not measure how often or to what extent this  shifting of time charges occurred. Headquarters officials were surprised to  learn that supervisors were reporting that staff time was charged  incorrectly and wondered why supervisors did not make reprogramming  requests.
Moreover, only half of the field staff responding to our survey reported that  they personally recorded the time charges for the program areas on their  time sheets. The other half did not record their time charges; instead,  someone else (e.g., supervisor, timekeeper, budget officer) recorded their  time. Of those staff who did not record their own time charges, 44 percent  reported that they had no basis to judge whether the time charges recorded  by others accurately reflected the work they had performed. Regional  officials explained that staff in large field offices were more specialized and  often worked on activities in only one or two program areas. In these cases,  timekeepers would know what program areas to charge even if staff did not  record their own time. In smaller field offices with only one or two staff  working on endangered species activities, regional officials assumed that  timekeepers could keep track of each staff member’s activities. One  regional official told us that it was the region’s policy to have staff and their  supervisors review and sign their time sheets. Other regional officials  stated that they expected the field office supervisors to ensure the  accuracy of time charges.
With the exception of the listing program area, Service headquarters has  delegated decisions about timekeeping practices to the regional offices.  Headquarters does not provide guidance on what specific activities staff  should charge to each of the other  program areas and how to charge time  when activities overlap program areas. Regional officials told us that  timekeeping practices varied among their field offices and were often left  to the discretion of the field office supervisor. Furthermore, they noted,  program activities often overlap because, as the endangered species  program has evolved, the separate program areas have become more  integrated. For example, field staff could conduct recovery, consultation,  and candidate conservation activities simultaneously when working with a  rancher whose federally permitted grazing allotment and private property  contain both candidate and listed species. This overlap in activities could  make it more difficult for staff and/or their timekeepers to determine which  program area codes to use when charging time.
Since the program’s funds are used chiefly to pay staff salaries, accurately  tracking time spent in each program area would allow the Service to  develop accurate historical data on how program funds are used and to  determine whether appropriated funds are spent in accordance with  budgetary direction. Concerns about the Service’s time charges are not  new. In 1990, Interior’s Office of Inspector General raised concerns about  the Service’s failure to track actual time spent on the major program areas  of listing, consultation, and recovery. The Service has since modified its  system for tracking how time is spent by program area. However, our  survey results cast doubt on the accuracy of the data being entered into the  system, and therefore, the amount of staff resources reportedly devoted to  each program area. Incorrect time charges could thus affect the Service’s  ability to make informed decisions about program operations and resource  needs and to provide accountability to Congress on how resources are  being spent. For example, headquarters, regional, and field office staff told  us they were concerned that they could not spend more time on recovery;  and in response to our survey, field staff reported spending only 28 percent  of their time on recovery. However, Service reports on how staff spent their  time, which are based on staff time charges, showed that in fiscal year  2001, 45 percent of staff time was spent on recovery activities. Some  regional officials told us that the difference between 28 and 45 percent  could have occurred because administrative staff (who did not participate  in our surveys) also may have charged time to endangered species program  activities, including recovery. On the other hand, this difference could have  occurred because field staff charged their time to recovery when other  budgets were exhausted.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The endangered species program poses a monumental challenge— identifying all species at risk of extinction and their critical habitat,  conducting multiple activities to reduce that risk, and ultimately recovering  listed species. According to the Service, a lack of resources and a heavy  workload have made it even more difficult to carry out the act’s  requirements, but staff have found ways to make their work processes  more efficient. Nevertheless, meeting statutory requirements and  mandated time frames and responding to litigation largely drive the  workload in some program areas.
Officials in the regions and in the Department of the Interior’s Office of the  Solicitor cited another opportunity for improved work processes that could  help avoid future litigation. These officials noted that staff would benefit  from more headquarters guidance on designating critical habitat after  listing a new species. Better guidance would help reduce the number of  legal challenges to the Service’s critical habitat designations and allow the  Service to better withstand legal challenges when they arise. Spending less  time responding to litigation would help reduce rework and backlogs and  allow the Service to implement other listing activities, such as reviewing  listing petitions and adding species at the greatest risk of extinction to the  list. The Service is taking first steps toward developing such guidance, but  it has not set a time for completing this guidance. In the interim, the Service  is subject to continuing legal challenges on its decisions on designating  critical habitat.
The Service clearly directs how the regional and field offices should  implement the endangered species program by dividing appropriated funds  into a separate budget for each program area. Recovery—the program’s  overall mission—receives almost 50 percent of program funds. However,  Service officials at all organizational levels acknowledged that staff time  available to spend on recovery has been reduced by other more pressing  workload priorities that are driven by statutory and legal requirements. Our  survey results support this observation, but Service data on how staff spent  their time do not fully reflect these circumstances. The difference between  the Service’s data and the field offices’ reported experiences may have  resulted from incorrect time charges, which would have presented an  inaccurate picture of how staff spent their time. No one knows the extent  of this problem. Moreover, many staff activities overlap program areas,  making it more difficult to determine which program area to charge when  reporting time spent. Consequently the Service is less able to make  informed decisions about future program operations and resource needs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To reduce the influence of litigation on the listing program area, we  recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Service to expedite  its efforts to develop guidance on designating critical habitat for listed  species.
To better understand the relative emphasis given to program areas in the  endangered species program and determine whether appropriated funds  are being spent in accordance with budgetary direction, we recommend  that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Service to review the processes  being used across the agency to record time charges. This review would  help identify any processes that are vulnerable to recording incorrect data;  the extent to which offices are charging time to another program area once  funds in the relevant program area are depleted; and the reasons for  shifting time charges.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for its  review and comment (see appendix V). In its written comments, the  Department generally agreed with our recommendation to develop  guidance on critical habitat designation. However, it stated that the  completion of this guidance has been delayed by other activities, including  completing the listing priority guidance (which it believes will reduce  future lawsuits, and thus the portion of resources devoted to litigation  support costs and compliance with court orders) as well as high-priority  listing activities (including those required by courts.). It highlighted several  intermediate steps the Service has taken to ensure a more consistent  approach to critical habitat designation. For example, in December 2001,  the Service held a national “listing” workshop for field and regional staff  and solicitors at which the Service provided guidance on critical habitat  designations and listing decisions. Additionally, the Service is developing a  framework for the economic analysis of critical habitat designations—the  subject of much of its “rework” on critical habitat designations—which it  expects to be available for public comment by the fall of 2002. While these  intermediate steps should help staff to deal with critical habitat designation  issues more consistently, we continue to believe that the Service needs to  focus on expediting its efforts to finalize its critical habitat designation  guidance. Without this guidance, the Service remains vulnerable to future  legal challenges on its decisions on designating critical habitat.
The Department also generally agreed with our recommendation to review  the processes being used across the agency to record time charges as part  of its efforts to implement an activity-based accounting system. However,  while the Department agreed that GAO raised valid concerns about time  charge inaccuracies, it questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to  conclude that spending on endangered species activities was materially  different from congressional intent. While our survey did not measure how  often or to what extent incorrect time charges were made, our results do  cast doubt on the accuracy of the data being reported on the amount of  staff resources devoted to each program area. Without more accurate data,  we believe the Service is unable to ensure that resources are being spent in  accordance with budgetary direction. Finally, the Department noted that  the Service plans to take necessary steps to ensure that the endangered  species program is adhering to reprogramming policies and will provide  further clarifying guidance to field staff on the types of activities that are  funded from each program area.
The Department also provided technical comments, which we have  incorporated into the report where appropriate.
We conducted our review from April 2001 through March 2002 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix IV provides information on our scope and methodology.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send a copy of this report to the  Secretary of the Interior and appropriate congressional committees. We  will make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Survey of Field Office Supervisors
section_title: Survey of Field Office Scientific and Technical Staff
section_title: Selected National and Regional Survey Results
paragraphs: This appendix provides selected results from the survey of field office  supervisors (appendix I) and the survey of field staff (appendix II). This  information is presented at the national level and broken out by region.
subsections: section_title: Field Staff Time Spent on Endangered Species Program Areas
paragraphs: Table 4 presents information on how field staff reported spending their  time among the five endangered species program areas in fiscal year 2001.
Table 5 presents information on the percentage of time field staff spent on  the major activities within each program area (consultation, recovery,  candidate conservation, listing, landowner incentives) in fiscal year 2001.  For example, staff spent about 80 percent of their consultation time  conducting section 7 consultation tasks, and the remaining 20 percent  conducting section 10 habitat conservation planning tasks.
section_title: Fiscal Year 2001 Reported Activity Levels
paragraphs: Table 6 presents information on endangered species activities worked on  or completed, by region during fiscal year 2001, as reported by field office  supervisors.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix presents the scope and methodology we used to determine  how the Service budgets and allocates its funds for the endangered species  program and what program activities the field offices emphasized in fiscal  year 2001. We interviewed officials at three levels within the Service:  headquarters, the seven regional offices, and several of the Service’s 60  field offices that carry out endangered species program activities. In  addition, to obtain more detailed information on program workload and  implementation issues in the field, we developed, pretested, and mailed out  two separate questionnaires.  One questionnaire was completed and  returned by supervisors at all 60 field offices that implement the  endangered species program, and the other questionnaire was completed  and returned by 83 percent of the 767 scientific and technical field staff  who carried out endangered species program activities in fiscal year 2001.
subsections: section_title: Interviews with Service Officials
paragraphs: To better understand how endangered species program funds were  budgeted and then allocated by headquarters to the regional offices, we  interviewed headquarters officials in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s  Division of Budget and Finance and Division of Endangered Species. To  determine how the regional offices distributed the funds to their field  offices, we surveyed all seven regional offices using a set of open-ended  questions concerning their funding allocation methods. To determine how  the endangered species program was carried out in fiscal year 2001, we  interviewed officials in the Department of the Interior’s Office of the  Solicitor and Office of Inspector General, and the Fish and Wildlife  Service’s Division of Budget and Finance, Division of Endangered Species,  officials in the seven regional offices, and supervisors and staff in several  field offices. We also surveyed all seven regional offices using a set of open- ended questions concerning their endangered species workload and  implementation. Additionally, we reviewed the program goals and  requirements established in the Endangered Species Act and related  Service policies, guidance, budgets, and other program documents.
section_title: Survey Methodology
paragraphs: To obtain more detailed information on program workload and  implementation issues in the field, we developed, pretested, and mailed out  two separate questionnaires.  To determine which field offices to include in  our survey, we asked regional officials to identify which of their field  offices conducted endangered species program activities. Table 7 shows  the field offices identified by regional officials that we included in our  surveys. A small number of other Fish and Wildlife Service field offices may  have received endangered species funds in fiscal year 2001 to carry out  specific tasks or projects. Staff in these offices do not normally provide  endangered species program services, so their respective regional offices  did not identify them for inclusion in our surveys. Additionally, three  recovery programs in Region 6 were not included in our survey because  they were not originally identified by the region as responsible for  implementing the endangered species program. We later learned that staff  in these programs spend their time on recovery activities.
We developed the survey questions by reviewing program policy  documents and handbooks and interviewing headquarters and regional  officials, and field office staff about work performed in the field offices.  The questionnaire for field office supervisors included questions about  budget, staff, and workload. The questionnaire for the scientific and  technical staff contained a series of questions about how work time was  divided among the different program areas and specific activities within  each area. It also contained questions about the factors influencing work  performance.
We pretested the content and format of the questionnaires with supervisors  at 6 field offices and with 16 scientific and technical staff at 5 field offices.  We conducted pretests in Oregon, California, Colorado, New Jersey, North  Carolina, and Florida to give us a good mix of size and geographical  coverage. During pretesting, we simulated the actual survey experience by  meeting with supervisors and staff members in individual sessions. We first  asked the individual to complete the appropriate questionnaire and then we  conducted a semi-structured interview to determine whether (1) the  questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) the questionnaire  placed an undue burden on the respondents, and (4) the questions were  unbiased. On the basis of the pretesting, changes were made to the final  questionnaire.
In mid-August, 2001, each field office supervisor was sent a packet that  contained a field office supervisor questionnaire and questionnaires for all  scientific and technical staff working on the endangered species program  in the field office and any sub-offices associated with the field office.  (Supervisors later verified the number of scientific and technical staff in  their field offices and sub-offices.)  In order to maintain the anonymity of  the scientific and technical staff, we did not obtain a list of their names, nor  did we ask them to identify themselves in their questionnaires. We included  postage-paid return envelopes for supervisors to use when returning their  questionnaires. Scientific and technical staff were instructed to either (1)  give the completed questionnaire in a sealed envelope to the supervisor to  return in the postage-paid envelope, or (2) mail the questionnaire directly  to GAO. We asked that all questionnaires be returned within 2 weeks. We  sent email reminders to supervisors after approximately 1 week, and then  again at the end of 2 weeks. We followed up with phone calls to those  supervisors who had not yet responded. In several regions where response  rates were low for the scientific and technical staff, we asked supervisors  to send out a general reminder to their scientific and technical staff. We  received questionnaires from all 60 field office supervisors, for a response  rate of 100 percent. We also received questionnaires from 636 of the 767  scientific and technical staff, for a response rate of 83 percent.
subsections: section_title: Calculation of Time Spent in Program Areas
paragraphs: Many of the scientific and technical staff who completed the questionnaire  spent only part of their time working on endangered species program  activities. In order to calculate the amount of time spent on each of the  program areas as a percentage of the total time spent on endangered  species program, the questionnaire asked the staff to estimate the average  number of hours per week spent on endangered species program work. It  then asked respondents to indicate the average percent of time spent on  the different program areas and on “general endangered species program  activities.” It also asked respondents to further divide up the time they  spent on each of the program areas by assigning a percentage to each task  in a list of specific tasks for that area so that the percentages assigned to  tasks added to 100 percent. Staff estimated these percentages based on  their recall of how much time they had spent on ESA activities over almost  a year’s time. Although we have no way of verifying the accuracy of these  percentages, during our pretest procedures staff told us that they believed  their estimates to be reasonably accurate.
To determine the percentage of time spent on each program area and on  each task within that program area, we made the following calculations: 1. For each respondent, the number of hours spent on a program area was  the total number of endangered species program hours worked  multiplied by the percent of time spent on that program area. For  example, if a respondent indicated she spent 30 hours a week on the  endangered species program and 50 percent of that time was spent on  candidate conservation, then the amount of time she spent on  candidate conservation was 30 x .50, or 15 hours per week. 2. For each respondent, the number of hours spent on a specific task  (within a program area) was the number of hours spent on that  program area multiplied by the percent of time spent on that task. For  example, if the respondent (above) indicated that she spent 10 percent  of her time on the candidate conservation task of monitoring and  evaluating agreements, then the amount of time she spent on  monitoring and evaluating would be .10 x 15 (hours per week spent on  candidate conservation) or 1.5 hours per week spent on the candidate  conservation task of monitoring and evaluating.  3. The total hours spent on a program area was the sum, across all  respondents, of the number of hours spent on that program area.  4. The total hours spent on a specific task was the sum, across all  respondents, of the number of hours spent on that task. 5. The percent of time spent on each program area was the total hours  spent on the program area (#3) divided by the total time spent on all  program areas (#3 summed across all 5 program areas). 6. The percent of time spent on each task was the total hours spent on  that task (#4) divided by the total hours spent on that program area  (#3).
section_title: Comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Mary Acosta, Arleen Alleman, Sandra  Davis, Alyssa M. Hundrup, and Lynn Musser made key contributions to this  report. Important contributions were also made by Nancy Crothers, Doreen  S. Feldman, Kathleen Gilhooly, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs