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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Table 6 presents information on endangered species activities worked on or completed, by region during fiscal year 2001, as reported by field office supervisors. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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.