This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-581 
entitled 'Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are 
Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized' which was released on 
June 25, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the 
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact 
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. 
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility 
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: GAO: 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives: 

June 2002: 

Endangered Species Program: 

Information on How Funds Are Allocated and What Activities Are 
Emphasized: 

GA0-02-581: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Endangered Species Program Funds Are Tied to Specific Program 
Areas at Each Organizational Level: 

Field Staff Reported Spending More Time on Consultation than on 
Other Program Areas: 

Survey Results Highlighted Other Factors That Had an Impact on 
Program Implementation: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Survey of Field Office Supervisors: 

Appendix II: Survey of Field Office Scientific and Technical Staff: 

Appendix III: Selected National and Regional Survey Results: 

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Endangered Species Program Areas, Descriptions, and Funding 
Levels, Fiscal Year 2001: 

Table 2: Number of Candidate, Proposed, and Listed Species for 
which Each Region Has Lead Responsibility, as of September 30, 2001: 

Table 3: Endangered Species Program Allocations to Headquarters and 
Regions by Program Area, Fiscal Year 2001: 

Table 4: Percentage of Time Field Staff Spent among Program Areas by 
Region: 

Table 5: Percentage of Time Field Staff Spent on Major Activities 
within Each Program Area by Region: 

Table 6: Reported Activity Levels by Region, Fiscal Year 2001: 

Table 7: Field Offices Surveyed by Region: 

Endangered Species Program: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Structure and Funding Levels of the Resource Management 
Appropriation Account: 

Figure 2: Location of Fish and Wildlife Service's Seven Regions and 
Regional Offices: 

Figure 3: Percentage of Time Field Staff Reported Spending on the 
Endangered Species Program Areas, Fiscal Year 2001: 

Abbreviations: 

ESA: Endangered Species Act: 

FOIA: Freedom of Information Act: 

FTE: Full-time-equivalent: 

FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service: 

FY: Fiscal year: 

GAO: General Accounting Office: 

HCP: Habitat Conservation Plan: 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

June 25, 2002: 

The Honorable Dan Burton: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

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[Footnote 1] 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.[Footnote 2] 

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,[Footnote 3] 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 DI 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. 

Results in Brief: 

The Service budgets and separately allocates its endangered species 
program funds by distinct subcategories corresponding to the program 
areas of recovery, consultation, candidate conservation, listing, and 
landowner incentives (for fiscal years 1999-2001 only). 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. 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). It then distributes 
the remaining regional office funding using program-specific formulas 
that are largely based on the number of at-risk and listed species 
that are found in each region and their habitat. The regional offices 
then further distribute funds to their field offices, again 
maintaining the distinct program area budgets, on the basis of the 
number of the staff in each field office and the size of the office's 
workload. 

Our 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.[Footnote 4] Field staff reported spending the majority of 
their consultation time working with federal agencies on projects for 
which the Service had to meet statutory requirements and time frames. 
In these cases, the staff could exercise little discretion over when 
they needed to respond to requests for consultations and how many 
requests they received. While recovery is the endangered species 
program's ultimate mission and received almost 50 percent of the 
funds, this priority did not translate to a proportionate amount of 
time spent on recovery largely because of the requirements and 
deadlines field staff faced in other program areas. This 
disproportionate relationship could also have occurred because the 
Service allocated some of its recovery funding through grants and 
contracts to outside partners for such activities as monitoring the 
status of a listed species. In the areas of candidate conservation and 
landowner incentives, staff reported spending 13 percent and 6 percent 
of their time, respectively. Finally, staff reported spending 10 
percent of their time on listing activities, including designation of 
critical habitat. These latter activities were in response to court 
orders and legal settlements, many of which criticized the Service for 
not designating critical habitat for many years when listing species. 
However, according to officials in the regions and in Interior's 
Office of the Solicitor, staff now lack sufficient guidance from 
headquarters on critical habitat designation. The officials stated 
that without this guidance, the Service is still vulnerable to 
litigation because staff do not have a consistent process for 
determining critical habitat. Accordingly, we are recommending that 
the Service expedite its efforts to develop guidance on designating 
critical habitat to reduce the number of legal challenges to the 
Service's critical habitat designations and to be better able to 
defend those that are brought. In commenting on a draft of this 
report, the Department agreed with our recommendation but stated that 
completion of the guidance has been delayed by higher priority 
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. 

Our surveys of field office supervisors and their staff highlighted 
other factors that can affect program implementation. Field office 
staff reported that a lack of resources and a heavy workload adversely 
affected their offices' ability to carry out their endangered species 
program work. For example, 73 percent of field office supervisors 
responded that a lack of staff adversely affected their ability to 
carry out their program responsibilities. Yet despite staff's 
perception of this lack of resources and heavy workload, staff were 
generally satisfied with the work conditions in their office. Factors 
such as being able to travel, attend training courses, and obtain 
access to other staff for knowledge sharing had a positive effect on 
program implementation. Finally, our surveys indicated that time 
charges reported by program area sometimes may not have reflected work 
actually being performed by staff, in part because time was charged to 
one program area for work performed in another. Our survey did not 
measure how often or to what extent these incorrect charges were made. 
An incorrect record of time charges could affect program 
implementation to the extent that the Service and the Congress rely on 
this information to make informed decisions about future program 
operations and resource needs. Because program funds are used chiefly 
to pay staff salaries, tracking actual time spent in each program area 
is essential to the Service's development of accurate data on how 
program funds are being used and whether appropriated funds are being 
spent in accordance with congressional direction provided in the 
appropriations committee conference reports. Consequently, we are 
recommending that the Service review the processes used in the field 
offices to record time charges to determine whether they correctly 
reflect how staff spend their time among the different program areas. 
In commenting on our draft report, the Department generally agreed 
with this recommendation and said it plans to review the processes 
used to record time charges in conjunction with the Department's 
efforts to implement a new activity-based accounting system. 

Background: 

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. 
[Footnote 5] 

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 figure 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. 

Figure 1: Structure and Funding Levels of the Resource Management 
Appropriation Account: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Top level: 
Resource Management ($807 million) 

Second level: 
* Fisheries ($92 million); 
* Ecological Services ($210 million): 
- Habitat Conservation ($78 million); 
- Endangered Species ($121 million); 
- Environmental Contaminants ($11 million); 
* Refuges and Wildlife ($326 million); 
* General Administration ($129 million); 
* Law Enforcement ($50 million). 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Table 1: Endangered Species Program Areas, Descriptions, and Funding 
Levels, Fiscal Year 2001: 

Program Area: Recovery; 
Description: Work with partners to develop and implement recovery 
plans, implement specific recovery actions, and reclassify or delist 
species as appropriate; 
Funding: $59,835,000. 

Program Area: Consultation 
Description: Meet the act's section 7 mandate for consultations with 
federal agencies whose proposed action may adversely affect a listed 
species and the section 10 mandate for habitat conservation plans and 
incidental take permits for non-federal groups whose action could 
result in the taking of a listed species. Take must be incidental to, 
not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity; 
Funding: $42,750,000. 

Program Area: Candidate conservation; 
Description: Assess species for candidate status, work with partners 
to plan candidate conservation agreements, and implement and monitor 
actions to conserve candidate species; 
Funding: $7,052,000. 

Program Area: Listing; 
Description: Process public petitions, rank candidate species for 
proposed species status, and prepare proposed and final rules for 
listing activities, including designation of critical habitat; 
Funding: $6,341,000. 

Program Area: Landowner incentives[A]; 
Description: Provide financial assistance and incentives for 
landowners to implement management actions on their lands to benefit 
listed and nonlisted species, such as actions under candidate 
conservation agreements; 
Funding: $4,969,000. 

[A] In fiscal year 2002, the landowner incentives program was 
discontinued as a separate program area within the endangered species 
program. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S Fish and Wildlife Service information. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Figure 2: Location of Fish and Wildlife Service's Seven Regions and 
Regional Offices: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Region 1: 
Portland, Oregon. 

Region 2: 
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Region 3: 
Twin Cities, Minnesota. 

Region 4: 
Atlanta, Georgia. 

Region 5: 
Hadley, Massachusetts. 

Region 6: 
Denver, Colorado. 

Region 7: 
Anchorage, Alaska. 

Source: GAO's representation of information provided by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Endangered Species Program Funds Are Tied to Specific Program Areas at 
Each Organizational Level: 

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. 

Service Headquarters Budgets and Allocates Its Endangered Species 
Program Funds by Program Area: 

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. 

Table 2: Number of Candidate, Proposed, and Listed Species for which 
Each Region Has Lead Responsibility, as of September 30, 2001: 

Region: 1; 
Candidate: 149; 
Proposed: 27; 
Listed-threatened: 102; 
Listed-endangered: 535. 

Region: 2; 
Candidate: 24; 
Proposed: 2; 
Listed-threatened: 30; 
Listed-endangered: 100. 

Region: 3; 
Candidate: 2; 
Proposed: 1; 
Listed-threatened: 16; 
Listed-endangered: 21. 

Region: 4; 
Candidate: 39; 
Proposed: 3; 
Listed-threatened: 82; 
Listed-endangered: 243. 

Region: 5; 
Candidate: 3; 
Proposed: 0; 
Listed-threatened: 15; 
Listed-endangered: 26. 

Region: 6; 
Candidate: 18; 
Proposed: 2; 
Listed-threatened: 23; 
Listed-endangered: 30. 

Region: 7; 
Candidate: 1; 
Proposed: 0; 
Listed-threatened: 2; 
Listed-endangered: 3. 

Region: Total; 
Candidate: 236; 
Proposed: 35; 
Listed-threatened: 270; 
Listed-endangered: 958. 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 6] Table 3 presents the 
endangered species program allocations to each region by program area 
for fiscal year 2001. 

Table 3: Endangered Species Program Allocations to Headquarters and 
Regions by Program Area, Fiscal Year 2001: 

Headquarters: 
Recovery: $2,718,266; 
Consultation: $2,000,237; 
Candidate conservation: $395,248; 
Listing: $1,413,973; 
Landowner incentives: $108,982; 
Headquarters total: $6,636,706; 

Region 1: 
Recovery: $29,865,578; 
Consultation: $20,496,430; 
Candidate conservation: $3,091,729; 
Listing: $3,346,805; 
Landowner incentives: $756,262; 
Regional total: $57,556,804; 

Region 2: 
Recovery: $5,429,633; 
Consultation: $5,401,861; 
Candidate conservation: $882,237; 
Listing: $429,335; 
Landowner incentives: $1,109,597; 
Regional total: $13,252,663; 

Region 3: 
Recovery: $1,933,141; 
Consultation: $1,307,650; 
Candidate conservation: $292,528; 
Listing: $141,469; 
Landowner incentives: $559,867; 
Regional total: $4,234,655; 

Region 4: 
Recovery: $10,834,350; 
Consultation: $7,822,681; 
Candidate conservation: $880,924; 
Listing: $279,718; 
Landowner incentives: $931,877; 
Regional total: $20,749,550; 

Region 5: 
Recovery: $2,164,114; 
Consultation: $1,751,378; 
Candidate conservation: $268,820; 
Listing: $137,210; 
Landowner incentives: $505,291; 
Regional total: $4,826,813; 

Region 6: 
Recovery: $4,520,581; 
Consultation: $2,476,614; 
Candidate conservation: $749,349; 
Listing: $379,956; 
Landowner incentives: $624,850; 
Regional total: $8,751,350; 

Region 7: 
Recovery: $992,854; 
Consultation: $334,596; 
Candidate conservation: $265,416; 
Listing: $212,553; 
Landowner incentives: $317,368; 
Regional total: $2,122,787; 

Total: 
Recovery: $58,458,517; 
Consultation: $41,591,447; 
Candidate conservation: $6,826,251; 
Listing: $6,341,019; 
Landowner incentives: $4,914,094; 
Headquarters/regional total: $118,131,328[A]. 

[A] Amounts do not include $2,816,000 for costs covered by the cost 
allocation methodology (CAM), which is endangered species funding used 
to support the general operating costs of the Service. 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget documents. 

[End of table] 

Regional Officials Reported Maintaining the Integrity of Program Area 
Budgets when Allocating Funds to Field Offices: 

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. 

Field Staff Reported Spending More Time on Consultation than on Other 
Program Areas: 

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.[Footnote 7] Our survey results indicated that consultation, 
which received less funding than recovery, accounted for more staff 
time (42 percent) than recovery (28 percent) (see figure 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. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Time Field Staff Reported Spending on the 
Endangered Species Program Areas, Fiscal Year 2001: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Consultation: 42%; 
Recovery: 28%; 
Candidate conservation: 13%; 
Listing: 10%; 
Landowner incentives: 6%. 

[End of figure] 

The Consultation Program Area Accounted for the Largest Amount of 
Field Staff Time: 

The consultation program area comprises two main activities under the 
Endangered Species Act-—section 7 consultations with federal agencies 
[Footnote 8] and section 10 habitat conservation planning activities 
with landowners.[Footnote 9] 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.[Footnote 10] 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. 

Recovery Activities Were Constrained by Other Program Area Priorities: 

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 2-1/2 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. 

Staff Focused Candidate Conservation Efforts on Developing Agreements 
but Spent Little Time Monitoring and Evaluating Them: 

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. 

Litigation Drove Listing Workload: 

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. 

Landowner Incentives Focused on Financial Assistance and Incentives to 
Private Landowners: 

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. 

Survey Results Highlighted Other Factors That Had an Impact on Program 
Implementation: 

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. 

Lack of Resources and Heavy Workload Adversely Affected Field Offices' 
Ability to Effectively Carry Out Their Work: 

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. 

General Work Conditions Were Satisfactory for Most Field Staff: 

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. 

Surveys Indicated Some Incorrect Time Charges Were Reported: 

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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 [hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

Barry T. Hill: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Survey of Field Office Supervisors: 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act (ESA) Program: Survey 
for Field Office Supervisors: 

Introduction: 

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has been asked by the 
Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, to study the Fish and 
Wildlife Service's implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
Program. 

As part of our study, we are surveying supervisors in the Fish and 
Wildlife Service Ecological Services' Field Offices who supervise ESA 
work. 

This questionnaire asks for information about your ESA budget, staff, 
and workload. 

Your cooperation is critical to our ability to provide current and 
complete information to the Congress. 

You will be notified when the report is issued and you will be able to 
request a free copy at that time. 

If you have any questions, please contact Arleen Alleman, in our 
Denver office, at allemana@gao.gov or (303) 572-7365 or Julie Gerkens, 
in our Washington, D.C. office, at gerkensj@gao.gov or (202) 512-9824. 

Please return your completed questionnaire to us by August 31, 2001. 

Instructions: 

Please answer the questions taking into consideration the ESA 
activities in your Field Office and also in any sub-offices or sub-
locations that your office directly supervises. 

Although your supervisory duties may include programs in addition to 
ESA, we would like you to answer the questions only considering ESA 
funding, FTEs, and work. 

Questions about ESA staff refer only to individuals who spend all or 
part of their time carrying out ESA-funded work. 

In order to ensure that your data are entered accurately, please use 
blue or black ink to write in your answers. Return the original copy 
of the completed questionnaire to us. 

We suggest you make a copy of your completed questionnaire for your 
records. 

Note: N = 60 unless otherwise noted. 

Section I: ESA Staffing. 

1. Please list all sub-offices and sub-locations, doing any ESA work, 
that are directly supervised by your Field Office: 

Total number of sub-offices and sub-locations reported: 43. 

Note: Please include the above sub-offices and sub-locations in the 
answers you provide in this questionnaire. 

2. How many staff members in your Field Office (including any sub-
offices and sub-locations) were given a copy of the "Survey for 
Scientific/Technical Staff" to complete? 767. 

3. In general, what is the primary way that ESA work in your Field 
Office is organized and/or assigned? (Please check one.) 

By geographic area: 3% (2); 
By areas of expertise: 18% (11); 
By sub-activities (e.g., Candidate Conservation, Listings, Critical 
Habitat Designations, etc.): 15% (9); 
By a combination of geographic area and sub-activities: 42% (25); 
Other: Please explain: 22% (13). 

4. Please indicate the full time equivalents your Field Office. Then 
indicate the number ESA budget. (For example, if there is only (FTEs) 
for Ecological Services currently in of those FTEs that are funded by 
the one supervisor in Ecological Services and 25% of the ESA budget, 
then the FTE for the FTE for Supendsors funded by the ESA of FTEs for 
Ecological Services, do not include Ecological Services, even if they 
work in the that person's salary and benefits are paid out Supervisors 
in Ecological Services is 1, while budget is .25 When calculating the 
number staff who work only on programs outside of same office.) 

Position: a. Supervisory (primarily doing management tasks) 
Number of Ecological Services FTEs, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 175; Min/max: 1-
18; 
FTEs funded by the ESA budget, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 112; Min/max: 0-
18. 

Position: b. Scientific/Technical (biologists, botanists, ecologists, 
employees who do GIS work, etc.) Include employees on term 
appointments who do this work. 
Number of Ecological Services FTEs, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 944; Min/max: 0-
103; 
FTEs funded by the ESA budget, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 541; Min/max: 0-
56. 

Position: c. Contract Employees 
Number of Ecological Services FTEs, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 4; Min/max: 0-2; 
FTEs funded by the ESA budget, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 3; Min/max: 0-2. 

Position: d. Office support, outreach/visual information, and 
publishing (secretaries, clerks, computer support staff, and 
individuals whose primary duties are to develop or disseminate 
educational and/or outreach materials or programs). 
Number of Ecological Services FTEs, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 290; Min/max: 0-
40; 
FTEs funded by the ESA budget, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 161; Min/max: 0-
19. 

Position: e. Seasonal/temporary Employees (including paid interns) 
Number of Ecological Services FTEs, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 42; Min/max: 0-
6; 
FTEs funded by the ESA budget, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 22; Min/max: 0-
3. 

Position: f. Other Please describe: 
Number of Ecological Services FTEs, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 28; Min/max: 0-
7; 
FTEs funded by the ESA budget, including any sub-offices or sub- 
locations. (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 17; Min/max: 0-
7. 

5. During the past three years, has your office had difficulty 
recruiting scientific/technical staff? (Please check one.) 
No: Go to Question 7: 48% (29); 
Yes: Go to Question 6: 52% (31). 

6. Please indicate the reason(s) you believe you have had trouble 
recruiting scientific/technical staff. (Check all that apply.) N = 31. 
Unable to find people with the right skills and/or qualifications: 68% 
(21); 
Heavy workload: 35% (11); 
High cost of living: 23% (7); 
Location of Field Office: 48% (15); 
Low salary: 23% (7); 
Federal recruiting process: 61% (19); 
Other Please explain: 23% (7). 

7. During the past three years, has your office had difficulty 
retaining scientific/technical staff? (Please check one.)
No: Go to Question 9: 53% (32); 
Yes: Go to Question 8: 47% (28). 

8. Please you Technical N = 28 indicate the reason(s) you believe have 
had trouble retaining scientific/staff. (Check all that apply.)
Heavy workload: 57% (16); 
Contentious nature of work: 39% (11); 
High cost of living: 21% (6); 
Location of Field Office: 32% (9); 
Non-competitive salaries: 25% (7); 
Lack of opportunities for career advancement: 50% (14); 
Term appointments: 18% (5); 
Personnel problems in your Field Office (i.e., morale, conduct, 
performance, attitude): 29% (8); 
Other Please explain: 29% (8). 

9. Regional offices vary in the amount of guidance (e.g., handbooks, 
memos, training) they give to Field Offices concerning prioritizing 
work with respect to projects, e.g., emphasis among sub-activities, 
which species to work on, and which HCPs to address. How much guidance 
does the Regional Office give your Field Office in setting its 
priorities for work done within each of the sub-activities of the ESA 
budget? (Please check one for each row.) 

Amount of Guidance Given by Regional Office: 

Sub-activity: a. Candidate Conservation; 
Little or no guidance: 25% (15); 
Some guidance: 37%; (22); 
A moderate amount of guidance: 30% (18); 
A great amount of guidance: 3% (2); 
A very great amount of guidance: 2% (1); 
No response: 3%; (2). 

Sub-activity: b. Listings; 
Little or no guidance: 5% (3); 
Some guidance: 15% (9); 
A moderate amount of guidance: 32% (19); 
A great amount of guidance: 25% (15); 
A very great amount of guidance: 17% (10); 
No response: 7% (4). 

Sub-activity: c. Consultation; 
Little or no guidance: 23% (14); 
Some guidance: 32% (19); 
A moderate amount of guidance: 28% (17); 
A great amount of guidance: 15% (9) 
A very great amount of guidance: 0%; 
No response: 2% (1). 

Sub-activity: d. Recovery; 
Little or no guidance: 12% (7); 
Some guidance: 50% (30); 
A moderate amount of guidance: 27% (16); 
A great amount of guidance: 10% (6); 
A very great amount of guidance: 2% (1) 
No response: 0%. 

Sub-activity: e. Landowner Incentives Program; 
Little or no guidance: 32% (19); 
Some guidance: 28% (17); 
A moderate amount of guidance: 25% (15); 
A great amount of guidance: 7% (4); 
A very great amount of guidance: 3% (2); 
No response: 5% (3). 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

10. To what extent does the Regional Office ask for your input in 
developing the guidance it provides to your Field Office for setting 
priorities for work done within the ESA sub-activities? (Please check 
one.) 
To a very great extent: 13% (8); 
To a great extent: 25% (15); 
To a moderate extent: 37% (22); 
To some extent: 12% (7); 
To little or no extent: 13% (8). 

11. How useful is the guidance provided by the Regional Office in 
helping you set ESA work priorities for your Field Office? (Please 
check one.) 
Of little or no use: 2% (1); 
Of some use: 32% (19); 
Of moderate use: 42% (25); 
Of great use: 23% (14); 
Of very great use: 2% (1). 

Note: Percentages in questions 10-11 may not add to 100 due to 
rounding. 

Please Note: Data from Questions 12—15 are not provided because they 
were deemed unreliable. 

Section II: Budget for ESA Program: 

12. Please indicate the amounts received up to this point from your 
Regional Office for your FY 2001 ESA budget and other sources of 
funding. (Include the budgets for any sub-offices or sub-locations in 
your answer.) 

Sub-activity: a. Candidate Conservation; 
FY 2001 money received up to this point from the Regional Office for 
the 5 ESA sub-activities: 
Column 1: Total ESA funding provided up to this point by the Regional 
Office. Do not include amounts reported in Columns 2 and 3. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Column 2: Special line-item funds or Congressional earmarked funds 
(e.g., NW Forest Plan) (Enter total dollar amount or, if none, enter 
0): 
Other funding for FY2001 ESA work: 
Column 3: Money from other sources used for ESA work, including money 
for salaries. Include any reimbursable funds or funds from any program 
other than ESA, even if those funds came from outside FWS. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Type of Funding (for Column 3): 

Sub-activity: b. Listing; 
FY 2001 money received up to this point from the Regional Office for 
the 5 ESA sub-activities: 
Column 1: Total ESA funding provided up to this point by the Regional 
Office. Do not include amounts reported in Columns 2 and 3. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Column 2: Special line-item funds or Congressional earmarked funds 
(e.g., NW Forest Plan) (Enter total dollar amount or, if none, enter 
0): 
Other funding for FY2001 ESA work: 
Column 3: Money from other sources used for ESA work, including money 
for salaries. Include any reimbursable funds or funds from any program 
other than ESA, even if those funds came from outside FWS. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Type of Funding (for Column 3): 

Sub-activity: c. Consultations; 
FY 2001 money received up to this point from the Regional Office for 
the 5 ESA sub-activities: 
Column 1: Total ESA funding provided up to this point by the Regional 
Office. Do not include amounts reported in Columns 2 and 3. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Column 2: Special line-item funds or Congressional earmarked funds 
(e.g., NW Forest Plan) (Enter total dollar amount or, if none, enter 
0): 
Other funding for FY2001 ESA work: 
Column 3: Money from other sources used for ESA work, including money 
for salaries. Include any reimbursable funds or funds from any program 
other than ESA, even if those funds came from outside FWS. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Type of Funding (for Column 3): 

Sub-activity: d. Recovery; 
FY 2001 money received up to this point from the Regional Office for 
the 5 ESA sub-activities: 
Column 1: Total ESA funding provided up to this point by the Regional 
Office. Do not include amounts reported in Columns 2 and 3. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Column 2: Special line-item funds or Congressional earmarked funds 
(e.g., NW Forest Plan) (Enter total dollar amount or, if none, enter 
0): 
Other funding for FY2001 ESA work: 
Column 3: Money from other sources used for ESA work, including money 
for salaries. Include any reimbursable funds or funds from any program 
other than ESA, even if those funds came from outside FWS. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Type of Funding (for Column 3): 

Sub-activity: e. Landowner Incentives Program; 
FY 2001 money received up to this point from the Regional Office for 
the 5 ESA sub-activities: 
Column 1: Total ESA funding provided up to this point by the Regional 
Office. Do not include amounts reported in Columns 2 and 3. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Column 2: Special line-item funds or Congressional earmarked funds 
(e.g., NW Forest Plan) (Enter total dollar amount or, if none, enter 
0): 
Other funding for FY2001 ESA work: 
Column 3: Money from other sources used for ESA work, including money 
for salaries. Include any reimbursable funds or funds from any program 
other than ESA, even if those funds came from outside FWS. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Type of Funding (for Column 3): 

Sub-activity: Totals: 
FY 2001 money received up to this point from the Regional Office for 
the 5 ESA sub-activities: 
Column 1: Total ESA funding provided up to this point by the Regional 
Office. Do not include amounts reported in Columns 2 and 3. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Column 2: Special line-item funds or Congressional earmarked funds 
(e.g., NW Forest Plan) (Enter total dollar amount or, if none, enter 
0): 
Other funding for FY2001 ESA work: 
Column 3: Money from other sources used for ESA work, including money 
for salaries. Include any reimbursable funds or funds from any program 
other than ESA, even if those funds came from outside FWS. (Enter 
total dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Type of Funding (for Column 3): 

13. What amount of your FY 2001 ESA budget was used for non-personnel 
costs (e.g., travel or supplies)? (Enter dollar amount or, if none, 
enter 0) 
Amount: 

14. In FY 2001, how much of your ESA budget has been used to pay other 
entities (e.g., state agencies or contractors) to perform work in one 
or more of the 5 sub-activities? (Enter dollar amount or, if none, 
enter 0): 
Amount: 

15. In FY 2001, approximately how much of your ESA budget was spent on 
developing grant proposals and/or administering grants (including 
Section 6 grants)? (Enter dollar amount or, if none, enter 0): 
Amount: 
Check here if you cannot provide this information: 

16. To what extent does the Regional Office ask for your input in 
developing your ESA budget? (Please check one): 
To a very great extent activity: 18% (11); 
To a great extent: 17% (10); 
To a moderate extent: 25% (15); 
To some extent: 28% (17); 
To little or no extent: 12% (7). 

17. In your opinion, to what extent does the Regional Office use your 
input in developing the ESA budget? (Please check one): 
To a very great extent: 7% (4); 
To a great extent: 23% (14); 
To a moderate extent: 27% (16); 
To some extent: 33% (20); 
To little or no extent: 10% (6). 

18. In FY 2001, have you had to do any of the following in order to 
carry out the work Amount $ of a sub-activity once the money for that 
sub-activity was depleted? (Check all that apply): 
Charge staff time to another sub-activity: 35% (21); 
Charge staff time to a general operating account: 15% (9); 
Request approval from the Regional Office to use funds provide this 
from one sub-activity to fund information the work of another sub-
activity: 10% (6); 
Request approval from the Regional Office to use funds from another 
program to fund the work of an ESA sub-activity: 3% (2); 
Request additional funding from the Regional Office: 37% (22); 
Other Please explain: 18% (11). 

Section III: ESA Work Done in Your Field Office, Including Sub-Offices 
or Sub-Locations Supervised by Your Field Office: 

19. In general, to what extent does each of the following adversely 
affect your Field Office's ability to carry out its ESA work? (Please 
check one for each row.) 

a. Lack of funds: 
To a very great extent: 43% (26); 
To a great extent: 30% (18); 
To a moderate extent: 17% (10); 
To some extent: 5% (3); 
To little or no extent: 5% (3). 

b. Shortage of staff: 
To a very great extent: 38% (23); 
To a great extent: 35% (21); 
To a moderate extent: 20% (12); 
To some extent: 3% (2); 
To little or no extent: 3% (2). 

c. Lack of appropriate skills and/or expertise in staff: N = 59: 
To a very great extent: 0%; 
To a great extent: 5% (3); 
To a moderate extent: 22% (13); 
To some extent: 40% (24); 
To little or no extent: 32% (19). 

d. Personnel problems in your Field Office (e.g., morale, conduct, 
performance, attitude): 
To a very great extent: 2% (1); 
To a great extent: 2% (1); 
To a moderate extent: 3% (2); 
To some extent: 27% (16); 
To little or no extent: 67% (40). 

e. Lack of money for continuing professional education training for 
staff: 
To a very great extent: 0%; 
To a great extent: 3% (2); 
To a moderate extent: 15% (9); 
To some extent: 35% (21); 
To little or no extent: 47% (28). 

f. Turnover of staff: 
To a very great extent: 0%;
To a great extent: 8% (5); 
To a moderate extent: 17% (10); 
To some extent: 40% (24); 
To little or no extent: 35% (21). 

g. Lack of authority to carry out work: N = 59: 
To a very great extent: 0%; 
To a great extent: 0%; 
To a moderate extent: 2% (1); 
To some extent: 17% (10); 
To little or no extent: 80% (48). 

h. Responding to FOIA requests: 
To a very great extent: 10% (6); 
To a great extent: 10% (6); 
To a moderate extent: 25% (15); 
To some extent: 33% (20); 
To little or no extent: 22% (13). 

i. Congressional interest in or concern about ESA work: 
To a very great extent: 7% (4); 
To a great extent: 5% (3); 
To a moderate extent: 20% (12); 
To some extent: 35% (21); 
To little or no extent: 33% (20). 

j. Negative public perceptions of the ESA: 
To a very great extent: 5% (3); 
To a great extent: 18% (11); 
To a moderate extent: 30% (18); 
To some extent: 32% (19); 
To little or no extent: 15% (9). 

k. Negative public perceptions of the FWS: 
To a very great extent: 5% (3); 
To a great extent: 7% (4); 
To a moderate extent: 25% (15); 
To some extent: 37% (22); 
To little or no extent: 27% (16). 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

20. Has your Field Office developed any methods for addressing 
workload and carrying out activities in a more efficient manner? 
(Please check one.) 
No: Go to Question 21: 17% (10); 
Yes: Please provide a brief description of the method(s): 80% (48). 
No response: 3% (2). 

Note: For questions 21 through 31, reported actions may not be 
mutually exclusive among the field offices. In some cases (e.g., 
listings, recovery plans) multiple offices contributed to the action 
being reported and therefore more than one office may have reported 
that action. 

21. Using the Candidate Conservation funds, how many Agreements is 
your Field Office currently developing or implementing with landowners 
and/or other entities? 

Candidate Conservation Agreements: 
Number of Agreements being developed (If none, enter 0): Total: 70; 
Min/max: 0-7; 
Number of Agreements being implemented (If none, enter 0): Total: 33; 
Min/max: 0-9. 

Other Agreements: Please specify: 
Number of Agreements being developed (If none, enter 0): Total: 19; 
Min/max: 0-10; 
Number of Agreements being implemented (If none, enter 0): Total: 12; 
Min/max: 0-7. 

22. Has species your Field Office identified any species that 
potentially could be placed on the candidate list? (Please check one): 
No: Go to Question 23: 40% (24); 
Yes: Please list the species, by common name: 57% (34); 
No response: 3% (2); 
Total number reported: 1,002; Min/max: 0-914. 

23. Is your Field Office currently working on, or has it completed, 
any Listings in FY 2001? (Please check one) 
No: Go to Question 24: 65% (39); 
Yes: Please list the FY 2001 Listings your Field Office has worked on, 
or is currently working on: 35% (21); 
FY 2001 Listings, by species (Please use common name): 
Total number reported: 49; Min/max: 0-17. 

24. Is your office currently working on, or has it worked on, any 
Critical Habitat Designations in FY 2001? (Please check one) 
No: Go to Question 25: 35% (21); 
Yes: In the table below, please record the Critical Habitat 
Designations your Field Office has worked on or is currently working 
on; 65% (39); 
FY 2001 Critical Habitat Designations, by species (Please use common 
name): 
Total number reported: 429; Min/max: 1-336. 

25.Please indicate the number of pre-application phase and approved 
section 10 (a)(1)(B) permits your office has worked on, or is working 
on, in FY 2001. Note: We do not report the number of species involved 
in each HCP because the question could be interpreted in more than one 
way. 

Type of HCP: a. Individual Landowner(s); 
Number of HCPs in pre-application phase (Enter number or, if none, 
enter O): Total: 217; Min/max: 0-114; 
Number of permits approved (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 
120; Min/max: 0-84; 
Number of species involved for each type of HCP. (Enter number or, if 
none, enter O): 
Number of programmatic HCPs (i.e., those that involve more than one
permit holder) (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 7; Min/max: 
0-4. 

Type of HCP: b. A county or municipality; 
Number of HCPs in pre-application phase (Enter number or, if none, 
enter O): Total: 60; Min/max: 0-12;
Number of permits approved (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 
7; Min/max: 0-2;
Number of species involved for each type of HCP. (Enter number or, if 
none, enter O): 
Number of programmatic HCPs (i.e., those that involve more than one
permit holder) (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 20; 
Min/max: 0-10. 

Type of HCP: c. Multiple counties and/or municipalities; 
Number of HCPs in pre-application phase (Enter number or, if none, 
enter O): Total: 42; Min/max: 0-17;
Number of permits approved (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 
6; Min/max: 0-3;
Number of species involved for each type of HCP. (Enter number or, if 
none, enter O): 
Number of programmatic HCPs (i.e., those that involve more than one
permit holder) (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 29; 
Min/max: 0-17. 

Type of HCP: d. Tribal Lands; 
Number of HCPs in pre-application phase (Enter number or, if none, 
enter O): Total: 1; Min/max: 0-1;
Number of permits approved (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 
0; Min/max: 0; 
Number of species involved for each type of HCP. (Enter number or, if 
none, enter O): 
Number of programmatic HCPs (i.e., those that involve more than one
permit holder) (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 0; Min/max: 
0. 

Type of HCP: e. State; 
Number of HCPs in pre-application phase (Enter number or, if none, 
enter O): Total: 19; Min/max: 0-3; 
Number of permits approved (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 
4; Min/max: 0-1; 
Number of species involved for each type of HCP. (Enter number or, if 
none, enter O): 
Number of programmatic HCPs (i.e., those that involve more than one
permit holder) (Enter number or, if none, enter O): Total: 4; Min/max: 
0-2. 

26. Please indicate the number of Section 7 informal and formal 
Consultations (as defined by the Consultation Handbook) your office 
has worked on, or is working on, in FY 2001. Also indicate whether or 
not these consultations are streamlined or involve more than one 
permit holder (e.g., programmatic consultations, batched 
consultations). 

Type of Section 7 Consultation: Informal; 
Consultations worked on or currently working on (Enter number or, if 
none, enter O): Total: 46,227; Min/max: 0-4,206; 
Consultations that are streamlined (Enter number or, if none, enter O): 
Consultations that are programmatic (i.e., involve more than one 
permit (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): 

Type of Section 7 Consultation: Formal; 
Consultations worked on or currently working on (Enter number or, if 
none, enter O): Total: 1,143; Min/max: 0-322;
Consultations that are streamlined (Enter number or, if none, enter 
O): Total: 187; Min/max: 0-36;
Consultations that are programmatic (i.e., involve more than one 
permit (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 272; Min/max: 0-116. 

27. Are there any species in any of the HCPs or Consultations 
indicated in Questions 24 and 25 that you believe would qualify for de-
listing, if funds for the de-listing process were available? (Please 
check one) 
No: Go to Question 28: 82% (49); 
Yes: Please list species (use common name): 29.18% (11); 
Total number reported: 17; 
Min/max: 1-3. 

28. Has your Field Office worked on any Section 10 (a)(1)(A) Recovery 
Permits in FY 2001? (Please check one) 
No: Go to Question 29: 32% (19); 
Yes: Please indicate the number of permits below: 65% (39); 
No response: 3% (2); 
Number: Total: 625; Min/max: 1-170; 
Check here if you cannot provide this information: 

29. Please indicate the number of Recovery Plans your Field Office is 
currently developing, the number your Field Office has the lead for 
developing, the number of plans that will be finalized in FY 2001 and 
the number of plans that you are currently responsible for 
implementing: 

Number of Species in Plan: Plan for a single species; 
Number of Plans your Field Office is developing and/or doing major 
revisions on (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 102; Min/max: 
0-7; 
Number of Plans for which you are the lead Field Office number or, if 
none, enter 0): Total: 364; Min/max: 0-43; 
Number of Plans that will be finalized in FY 2001 (Enter number or, if 
none, enter 0): Total: 9; Min/max: 0-2; 
Number of Plans being implemented (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): 
Total: 716; Min/max: 0-101. 

Number of Species in Plan: Plan for multiple species; 
Number of Plans your Field Office is developing and/or doing major 
revisions on (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): Total: 30; Min/max: 
0-10; 
Number of Plans for which you are the lead Field Office number or, if 
none, enter 0): Total: 77; Min/max: 0-27; 
Number of Plans that will be finalized in FY 2001 (Enter number or, if 
none, enter 0): Total: 3; Min/max: 0-2; 
Number of Plans being implemented (Enter number or, if none, enter 0): 
Total: 87; Min/max: 0-27. 

30. Is your Field Office currently working on, or has it completed, 
any De-listings in FY 2001? (Please check one): 
No: Go to Question: 80% (48); 
Yes: In the table below, please record the De-listings your Field 
Office has worked on, or is currently working on: 20% (12); 
FY 2001 De-listings, by species (Please use common name): 
Total number reported: 25; 
Min/max: 1-5. 

31. How many agreements, funded by the Landowner Incentives Program 
(e.g. candidate conservation agreements with assurances, safe harbor 
agreements), is your Field Office currently developing or implementing? 

Type of Agreement: 
Number of agreements being developed (If none, enter 0): 
Total: 107; Min/max: 0-25; 
Number of agreements being implemented (If none, enter 0): 
Total: 137; Min/max: 0-68. 

32. If you would like to make additional comments concerning any topic 
covered in this questionnaire, please feel free to use this page or to 
attach additional pages. 
Number of comments supplied: 20 

Information About Individual(s) Completing This Questionnaire: 

Please provide the following information on the individuals who 
completed this questionnaire. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 
Name: 
Title: 
Phone: 
E-mail: 

Name: 
Title: 
Phone: 
E-mail: 

Name: 
Title: 
Phone: 
E-mail: 

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire! 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Survey of Field Office Scientific and Technical Staff: 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act (ESA) Program: Survey 
for Scientific/Technical Staff: 

Introduction: 

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has been asked by the 
Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, to study the Fish and 
Wildlife Service's implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
Program. 

As part of our study, we are surveying all scientific/technical staff 
in the Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services' Field Offices 
who supervise ESA work. 

This questionnaire asks for information about the time you spend on 
various ESA tasks and the factors that influence your ability to 
perform your work. 

Your cooperation is critical to our ability to provide current and 
complete information to the Congress. 

If you have any questions, please contact Arleen Alleman, in our 
Denver office, at allemana@gao.gov or (303) 572-7365 or Julie Gerkens, 
in our Washington, D.C. office, at gerkensj@gao.gov or (202) 512-9824. 

Your Field Office will be notified when our report is issued and you 
will be able to request a free copy at that time. 

Instructions: 
Please Read Before Beginning: 

* Unless otherwise specified, the following questions refer to ESA 
work performed up to this point in time in fiscal year 2001. 

* In order to ensure that your data are entered accurately, please use 
blue or black ink to write in your answers. Return the original copy 
of the completed questionnaire to us. 

* When you have completed this questionnaire, you have two options for 
returning it to us: 

1. You can seal your questionnaire in the attached envelope and give 
it to the individual in charge of distributing and collecting the 
questionnaires; or: 

2. You can send your questionnaire directly to us at the following 
address: 

Alyssa Hundrup: 
Mail Room 2T23: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Please note that the envelope is not postage-paid and requires 57 cents 
postage. 

Please return your completed questionnaire by August 31, 2001. 

Note: N = 618 unless otherwise noted. 

Section I: Background Information: 

1. Field Office Name: A total of 618 staff respondents were included 
from the 60 field offices surveyed 

2. Your Position/Title: 

Position: Biologist; 
Number of Positions: 443; 
Percentage: 72%. 

Position: Supervisor; 
Number of Positions: 83; 
Percentage: 13%. 

Position: Coordinator; 
Number of Positions: 13; 
Percentage: 2%. 

Position: Specialist[A]; 
Number of Positions: 79; 
Percentage: 13%. 

Total: 
Number of Positions: 618; 
Percentage: 100%. 

[A] Includes positions such as ecologist, botanist, hydrologist, 
toxicologist, and GIS specialist. 

3. Is your position a permanent position or is it a term position? 
(Please check one) 

Permanent: 93%; 
Term: 6%; 
No Response: 1%. 

Please use these definitions in answering Question 4: 
Ecological Services includes Habitat Conservation (e.g., Partners for 
Fish and Wildlife and National Wetlands Inventory, Clean Water Act, 
section 404) and Environmental Contaminants. ESA includes the five sub-
activities (Candidate Conservation, Listing, Consultation, Recovery, 
and the Landowner Incentives Program) that are in the ESA budget. 

4. During Fiscal Year 2001 on average, how many hours per week have 
you worked on Ecological Services activities and ESA activities? 

a. Regular paid time: 
Average number of hours per week worked on Ecological Services 
Activities (excluding ESA): (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 
0): Mean: 8.9; Min/max: 0-40; 
Average number of hours per week worked on the five ESA sub-
activities: (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 0): Mean: 30.1; 
Min/max: 1-42. 

b. Earned comp time: 
Average number of hours per week worked on Ecological Services 
Activities (excluding ESA): (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 
0): Mean: .2; Min/max: 0-6; 
Average number of hours per week worked on the five ESA sub-
activities: (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 0): Mean: .8; 
Min/max: 0-30. 

c. Paid over-time: 
Average number of hours per week worked on Ecological Services 
Activities (excluding ESA): (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 
0): Mean: .01; Min/max: 0-1; 
Average number of hours per week worked on the five ESA sub-
activities: (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 0): Mean: .2; 
Min/max: 0-15. 

d. Time worked without any compensation (money or hours off): 
Average number of hours per week worked on Ecological Services 
Activities (excluding ESA): (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 
0): Mean: .4; Min/max: 0-25; 
Average number of hours per week worked on the five ESA sub-
activities: (Enter number of hours or, if none, enter 0): Mean: 1.3; 
Min/max: 0-25. 

Section II: Time Spent on ESA Activities: 

This section asks you to estimate the percentage of time you have 
spent, on average, on ESA activities during FY 2001. You may want to 
read the entire section (Questions 5 —11) before beginning to answer. 

5. Of the time you spent on ESA activities in FY 2001, please estimate 
the percent of time, on average, that you spent on each of the 
following activities. (The total percent should add up to 100, even if 
you do not spend 100% of your time on ESA activities.) 

ESA Activities: Candidate Conservation; 
Average percent time spent on each activity. (Record percentages in 
the boxes below): 10%. 

ESA Activities: Listing; 
Average percent time spent on each activity. (Record percentages in 
the boxes below): 8%. 

ESA Activities: Consultation; 
Average percent time spent on each activity. (Record percentages in 
the boxes below): 33%. 

ESA Activities: Recovery; 
Average percent time spent on each activity. (Record percentages in 
the boxes below): 22%. 

ESA Activities: Landowner Incentives Program; 
Average percent time spent on each activity. (Record percentages in 
the boxes below): 5%. 

ESA Activities: General ESA activities (Activities that are part of 
ESA work that do not fit entirely within just one of the above 5 
budget codes. For a description of these activities see Question 11 on 
page 9.) 
Average percent time spent on each activity. (Record percentages in 
the boxes below): 22%[A]. 

ESA Activities: Total: 
Average percent time spent on each activity. (Record percentages in 
the boxes below): 100% 

[A] The category of "general endangered species program activities" 
included such things as supervision, training and administrative tasks 
that did not contribute directly to work on one of the program areas. 
The time spent on each of these activities was not included when 
calculating the percentage of time spent on each of the five program 
areas. See appendix IV for how this calculation was determined. 

6. Candidate Conservation Sub-Activity: 

Record the percent of time that you spent on tasks associated with the 
Candidate Conservation Sub-Activity during FY 2001. 

Note: if the percentage of time recorded for this sub-activity for 
Question 5 (on page 3) was 0, then skip this question and go to 
Question 7. 

Candidate Conservation Sub-Activity: N=224: 

Candidate Conservation Task: (a) Conducting studies or gathering 
information to identify candidate species and, when appropriate, 
completing the documentation to elevate a species to candidate status; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 26%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 58%; 
No: 26%; 
No Response: 17%. 

Candidate Conservation Task: (b) Coordinating and/or assisting public 
or private agencies or landowners with activities and/or developing 
agreements to work towards habitat restoration, reintroduction or 
other conservation activities; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 68%
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 63%. 
No: 30%. 
No Response: 7%. 

Candidate Conservation Task: (c) Monitoring and evaluating candidate 
conservation agreements/activities and their effectiveness;  
Average percent of time spent on this task: 5%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 46%. 
No: 30%. 
No Response: 24%. 

Total Percentage: 100%. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

7. Listing Sub-Activity: 

Record the percent of time that you spent on tasks associated with the 
Listing Sub-Activity during FY 2001. 

Note: If the percentage of time recorded for this sub-activity for 
Question 5 (on page 3) was 0, then skip this question and go to 
Question 8. 

Listing Sub-Activity: N=197: 

Average percent of time spent on this task Are you concerned that you 
are not able to spend enough time on this activity to be effective in 
your work? (Please check yes or no for each task.) 

Listing Task: (a) Preparation of preliminary (90-day) findings on 
petitions to list species submitted by the public, including all tasks 
associated with the petition, including drafting of the finding; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 4%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 20%. 
No: 46%. 
No Response: 34%. 

Listing Task: (b) Working on special rules (4D) for endangered species; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 3%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 15%. 
No: 48%. 
No Response: 37%. 

Listing Task: (c) Conducting studies or fieldwork to confirm that a 
petitioned species may be placed on the candidate list; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 8%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 32%. 
No: 32%. 
No Response: 35%. 

Listing Task: (d) Preparation of 12-month petition findings, including 
drafting of the administrative finding; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 4%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 19%. 
No: 47%. 
No Response: 34%. 

Listing Task: (e) Drafting Federal Register notices for listing and 
preparing associated documentation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 13%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 23%. 
No: 41%. 
No Response: 35%. 

Listing Task: (f) Preparing, conducting, or attending public hearings 
pertaining to Federal Register proposed rules on listings and 
responding to public comments; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 3%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 14%. 
No: 50%. 
No Response: 36%. 

Listing Task: (g) Conducting studies or gathering information in order 
to respond to a court-ordered listing; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 5%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 22%. 
No: 42%. 
No Response: 35%. 

Listing Task: (h) Litigation support (if administrative findings or 
listing determinations are challenged in court); 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 12%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 15%. 
No: 50%. 
No Response: 35%. 

Critical Habitat Task: (i) Conducting studies or gathering information 
to prepare a critical habitat designation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 5%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 37%. 
No: 33%. 
No Response: 30%. 

Critical Habitat Task: (j) Drafting Federal Register notices for 
critical habitat designations and any associated documentation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 11%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 23%. 
No: 50%. 
No Response: 27%. 

Critical Habitat Task: (k) Preparing, conducting or attending public 
hearings pertaining to Federal Register proposed rules on critical 
habitat designation and responding to public comments; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 7%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 20%. 
No: 54%. 
No Response: 25%. 

Critical Habitat Task: (l) Conducting studies or gathering information 
in order to respond to a court-ordered critical habitat designation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 17%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 35%. 
No: 40%. 
No Response: 25%. 

Critical Habitat Task: (m) Litigation support (if critical habitat 
designations are challenged in court); 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 9%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 17%. 
No: 51%. 
No Response: 32%. 

Total Percentage: 100%. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

8. Consultation Sub-Activity: 

Record the percent of time that you spent on tasks associated with the 
Consultation Sub-Activity during FY 2001. 

Note: If the percentage of time recorded for this sub-activity for 
Question 5 (on page 3) was 0, then skip this question and go to 
Question 9. 

Consultation Sub-Activity: N = 527. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (a) Talking by telephone or in person to 
answer questions prior to formal or informal consultations; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 10%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 24%. 
No: 60%. 
No Response: 16%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (b) Discussing or negotiating an informal 
or formal consultation with a federal agency, representative, or their 
consultant; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 17%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 33%. 
No: 50%. 
No Response: 17%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (c) Reviewing biological assessments to 
determine the effect on species; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 9%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 334%. 
No: 48%. 
No Response: 19%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (d) Conducting fieldwork to determine the 
effect on a species for a biological assessment review; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 2%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 55%. 
No: 22%. 
No Response: 23%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (e) Drafting or reviewing NEPA documents 
describing proposed actions; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 4%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 27%. 
No: 47%. 
No Response: 26%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (f) Preparation or review of biological 
opinions; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 15%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 40%. 
No: 38%. 
No Response: 22%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (g) Drafting and review of concurrence 
letters; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 12%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 21%. 
No: 56%. 
No Response: 23%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (h) Responding to requests for a list of 
species in a consultation action area; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 6%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 11%. 
No: 62%. 
No Response: 27%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (i) Monitoring the compliance of 
biological opinion terms and conditions; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 2%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 54%. 
No: 20%. 
No Response: 27%. 

Section 7 Consultation Task: (j) Litigation support relative to 
section 7 actions; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 2%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 12%. 
No: 51%. 
No Response: 37%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (k) Discussing or negotiating a specific HCP with 
an applicants or their representatives or consultants; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 8%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 20%. 
No: 31%. 
No Response: 49%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (l) Conducting fieldwork and/or site visits at 
potential HCP areas; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 2%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 24%. 
No: 27%. 
No Response: 49%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (m) Assisting in the development or drafting of 
HCPs; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 3%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 21%. 
No: 30%. 
No Response: 49%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (n) Reviewing and commenting on HCPs and permit 
issuance documentation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 3%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 17%. 
No: 32%. 
No Response: 51%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (o) Drafting or reviewing NEPA documents 
describing proposed actions; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 2%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 13%. 
No: 35%. 
No Response: 53%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (p) Drafting Federal Register notices for HCPs 
and preparing associated documentation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 1%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 7%. 
No: 40%. 
No Response: 54%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (q) Preparing, conducting or attending public 
hearings pertaining to Federal Register proposed rules on HCPs and 
responding to public comments; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 0%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 8%. 
No: 38%. 
No Response: 55%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (r) Monitoring the implementation of the HCP and 
the terms of agreement; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 1%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 22%. 
No: 27%. 
No Response: 52%. 

Section 10 HCP Task: (s) Litigation support relative to habitat 
conservation planning efforts; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 1%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 7%. 
No: 38%. 
No Response: 56%. 

Total Percentage: 100%. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

9. Recovery Sub-Activity: 

Record the percent of time that you spent on tasks associated with the 
Recovery Sub-Activity during FY 2001. 

Note: If the percentage of time recorded for this sub-activity for 
Question 5 (on page 3) was 0, then skip this question and go to 
Question 10. 

Recovery Sub-Activity: N = 381 

Recovery Task: (a) Conducting fieldwork for a recovery plan; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 7%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 37%. 
No: 28%. 
No Response: 36%. 

Recovery Task: (b) Gathering information (e.g. literature reviews 
necessary to prepare a recovery plan; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 5%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 30%. 
No: 36%. 
No Response: 34%. 

Recovery Task: (c) Developing draft or final recovery plans; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 7%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 24%. 
No: 40%. 
No Response: 35%. 

Recovery Task: (d) Coordinating with others or working with a recovery 
team to develop a recovery plan; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 9%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 32%. 
No: 37%. 
No Response: 31%. 

Recovery Task: (e) Drafting Federal Register notices for recovery 
plans and preparing associated documentation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 1%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 10%. 
No: 47%. 
No Response: 43%. 

Recovery Task: (f) Preparing, conducting, and attending public 
hearings pertaining to Federal Register proposed rules on recovery 
plans and responding to public comments; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 1%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 12%. 
No: 47%. 
No Response: 41%. 

Recovery Task: (g) Implementing specific tasks included in final 
recovery plans; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 19%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 54%. 
No: 18%. 
No Response: 28%. 

Recovery Task: (h) Amending and revising recovery plans; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 5%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 30%. 
No: 30%. 
No Response: 40%. 

Recovery Task: (i) Monitoring species status such as tracking 
population changes in habitat conditions, and increases or decreases 
of threats; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 15%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 60%. 
No: 19%. 
No Response: 21%. 

Recovery Task: (j) Encouraging public and private agencies and 
landowners to enhance or restore habitats or reduce impacts to species 
for the purposes of recovery; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 24%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 59%. 
No: 21%. 
No Response: 20%. 

Recovery Task: (k) Preparing NEPA documentation for recovery tasks 
undertaken by the Service; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 4%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 14%. 
No: 43%. 
No Response: 43%. 

De-listing Task: (l) Gathering information (e.g. literature review) or 
working with others to obtain information necessary for de-listing; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 2%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 22%. 
No: 33%. 
No Response: 45%. 

De-listing Task: (m) Drafting Federal Register notices for de-listing 
and preparing associated documentation; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 1%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 7%. 
No: 43%. 
No Response: 49%. 

De-listing Task: (n) Preparing, conducting, and attending public 
hearings pertaining to Federal Register proposed rules on de-listings 
and responding to public comments; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 0%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 7%. 
No: 43%. 
No Response: 51%. 

Total Percentage: 100%. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

10. Landowner Incentives Program Sub-Activity: 

Record the percent of time that you spent on tasks associated with the 
Landowner Incentives Program Sub-Activity during FY 2001. 

Note: If the percentage of time recorded for this sub-activity for 
Question 5 (on page 3) was 0, then skip this question and go to 
Question 11. 

Landowner Incentives Program Sub-Activity: N = 108: 

Landowner Incentives Program Task: (a) Coordinating meetings and 
activities to develop and maintain partnerships and/or agreements with 
landowners (specific to the Landowner Incentives Program); 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 33%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 57%. 
No: 29%. 
No Response: 14%. 

Landowner Incentives Program Task: (b) Working with others to develop 
Landowner Incentives grant proposals or to administer Landowner 
Incentives grants; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 46%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 51%. 
No: 38%. 
No Response: 11%. 

Landowner Incentives Program Task: (c) Monitoring and evaluating 
landowner incentive agreements/activities; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 21%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 54%. 
No: 30%. 
No Response: 16%. 

Total Percentage: 100% 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

11. General ESA Activities: 

Record the percent of time that you spent on General ESA Activities 
Tasks during FY 2001. 

Note: If the percentage of time recorded for this activity for 
Question 5 (on page 3) was 0, then skip this question and go to 
Question 12. 

General ESA Activities: N = 494. 

General ESA Task: (a) Talking by telephone or in person to answer 
questions about ESA-related issues (not related to specific on-go; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 15%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 22%. 
No: 60%. 
No Response: 18%. 

General ESA Task: (b) Working with applicants to prepare grant 
applications or working on grant review, processing, or administration 
(including any section 6 grants, but excluding those that were funded 
by the Landowner Incentives Program Sub-activity); 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 9%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 27%. 
No: 37%. 
No Response: 36%. 

General ESA Task: (c) Developing or implementing reimbursable 
agreements; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 2%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 13%. 
No: 43%. 
No Response: 44%. 

General ESA Task: (d) Administrative duties such as assembling 
records, data entry, processing internal paperwork, attending office 
meetings etc.; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 12%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 26%. 
No: 52%. 
No Response: 22%. 

General ESA Task: (e) Attending training courses, conferences, etc. 
related to ESA; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 5%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 38%. 
No: 39%. 
No Response: 23%. 

General ESA Task: (f) Supervising, teaching, or training staff, 
coordinating with other staff, or reviewing the work of other staff 
members; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 41%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 37%. 
No: 39%. 
No Response: 24%. 

Outreach Activity: (g) Developing general education materials or 
planning or implementing outreach activities such as workshops, 
symposia, and meetings; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 4%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 34%. 
No: 32%. 
No Response: 34%. 

Outreach Activity: (h) Providing specific training to others outside 
FWS on ESA related issues; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 3%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 29%. 
No: 32%. 
No Response: 39%. 

Outreach Activity: (i) Responding to congressional inquiries; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 3%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 8%. 
No: 53%. 
No Response: 39%. 

Outreach Activity: (j) Responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
inquiries; 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 5%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 11%. 
No: 54%. 
No Response: 35%. 

Outreach Activity: (k) Other Please specify: 
Average percent of time spent on this task: 0%; 
Are you concerned that you are not able to spend enough time on this 
activity to be effective in your work? (Please check yes or no for 
each task): 
Yes: 6%. 
No: 4%. 
No Response: 90%. 

Total Percentage: 100% 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Section III: Work Conditions in Your Field Office. 

12. How satisfied are you with each of the following work conditions 
in your Field Office? (Check one box for each row.) 

Work condition: a. Equipment or supplies; N = 608; 
Very satisfied: 39%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 41%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 9%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 10%; 
Very dissatisfied: 2%. 

Work condition: b. Computer support (e.g., data entry, technical 
support); N = 612; 
Very satisfied: 43%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 30%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 7%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 16%; 
Very dissatisfied: 5%. 

Work condition: c. Access to other FWS staff, either within or outside 
your Field Office, for knowledge sharing; N = 612; 
Very satisfied: 45%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 32%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 10%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 10%; 
Very dissatisfied: 3%. 

Work condition: d. Travel money and/or opportunity to travel; N = 611; 
Very satisfied: 37%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 33%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 16%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 11%; 
Very dissatisfied: 3%. 

Work condition: e. Staff turnover; N = 607; 
Very satisfied: 15%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 13%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 34%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 21%; 
Very dissatisfied: 17%. 

Work condition: f. Personnel conditions in your Field Office (i.e., 
morale, conduct, performance, attitude); N = 611; 
Very satisfied: 24%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 26%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 16%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 19%; 
Very dissatisfied: 16%. 

Work condition: g. Opportunity for advancement; N = 612; 
Very satisfied: 19%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 29%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 22%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 19%; 
Very dissatisfied: 11%. 

Work condition: h. Opportunities to work on species that you 
specialize in; N = 607; 
Very satisfied: 22%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 26%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 29%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 16%; 
Very dissatisfied: 8%. 

Work condition: i. Training in office and/or ESA guidelines/policies; 
N = 610; 
Very satisfied: 20%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 36%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 24%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 16%; 
Very dissatisfied: 4%. 

Work condition: j. Professional training, both ESA specific and 
continuing professional education; N = 614;
Very satisfied: 25%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 36%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 18%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 16%; 
Very dissatisfied: 6%. 

Work condition: k. Number of scientific/technical staff in Field 
Office; N = 613; 
Very satisfied: 18%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 30%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 16%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 22%; 
Very dissatisfied: 15%. 

Work condition: l. Amount of clerical/secretarial help; N = 615; 
Very satisfied: 26%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 32%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 15%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 19%; 
Very dissatisfied: 8%. 

Work condition: m. Quality of the direct supervision you receive from 
your Field Office; N = 612; 
Very satisfied: 37%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 28%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 13%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 12%; 
Very dissatisfied: 10%. 

Work condition: n. Quality of overall supervision in Field Office; 
N=611; 
Very satisfied: 29%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 31%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 14%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 16%; 
Very dissatisfied: 11%. 

Work condition: o. Quality of guidance from the Regional Office; N=611; 
Very satisfied: 10%; 
Somewhat satisfied: 25%; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 33%; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 23%; 
Very dissatisfied: 9%. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

13. To what extent does each of the following conditions make your 
work take longer than you think it would normally take? (Check one box 
for each row.) 

Condition: a. Public's lack of knowledge and/or misunderstanding of 
the ESA; N = 615; 
To a very great extent: 19%; 
To a great extent: 30%; 
To a moderate extent: 23%; 
To some extent: 19%; 
To little or no extent: 6%; 
Not applicable: 3%. 

Condition: b. Negative public perceptions of the ESA; N = 615; 
To a very great extent: 19%; 
To a great extent: 26%; 
To a moderate extent: 23%; 
To some extent: 20%; 
To little or no extent: 8%; 
Not applicable: 3%. 

Condition: c. Negative public perceptions of the FWS; N = 615; 
To a very great extent: 11%; 
To a great extent: 18%; 
To a moderate extent: 25%; 
To some extent: 22%; 
To little or no extent: 20%; 
Not applicable: 3%. 

Condition: d. Complicated or controversial negotiations with 
landowners or developers; N = 613; 
To a very great extent: 17%; 
To a great extent: 22%; 
To a moderate extent: 23%; 
To some extent: 15%; 
To little or no extent: 8%; 
Not applicable: 15%. 

Condition: e. Complicated or controversial negotiations with federal 
agencies; N = 614; 
To a very great extent: 15%; 
To a great extent: 25%; 
To a moderate extent: 27%; 
To some extent: 16%; 
To little or no extent: 9%; 
Not applicable: 8%. 

Condition: f. Complicated or controversial multi-partner, regional, 
county, or state-wide HCPs; N =606; 
To a very great extent: 9%; 
To a great extent: 12%; 
To a moderate extent: 10%; 
To some extent: 7%; 
To little or no extent: 9%; 
Not applicable: 53%. 

Condition: g. Responding to FOIA requests; N =614; 
To a very great extent: 7%; 
To a great extent: 8%; 
To a moderate extent: 15%; 
To some extent: 22%; 
To little or no extent: 22%; 
Not applicable: 25%. 

Condition: h. Congressional interest in or concern about ESA work; N = 
612; 
To a very great extent: 5%; 
To a great extent: 9%; 
To a moderate extent: 15%; 
To some extent: 27%; 
To little or no extent: 26%; 
Not applicable: 17%. 

Condition: i. Competing priorities due to heavy workload; N = 614; 
To a very great extent: 47%; 
To a great extent: 24%; 
To a moderate extent: 16%; 
To some extent: 8%; 
To little or no extent: 4%; 
Not applicable: 1%. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

14. Regional and Field Offices vary in the amount of guidance (e.g., 
handbooks, memos, training) they give to professional/technical staff 
concerning prioritizing work with respect to projects, e.g., emphasis 
among sub-activities, which species to work on, and which HCPs to 
address. In general, how much guidance do you receive from your 
Regional and Field Offices in determining how you set your priorities 
for the ESA work you do? (Please check one.) 

Little or no guidance: 19%; 
Some guidance: 31%; 
A moderate amount of guidance: 31%; 
A great amount of guidance: 15%; 
A very great amount of guidance: 2%; 
No response: 1%. 

15. How much guidance do you receive from your supervisor in 
determining how you set your priorities for the ESA work you do? 
(Please check one.) 

Little or no guidance: 15%; 
Some guidance: 27%; 
A moderate amount of guidance: 33%; 
A great amount of guidance: 18%; 
A very great amount of guidance: 6%; 
No response: 1%. 

16. Who records the Ecological Services and/or ESA job codes on your 
time and attendance report? (Please check one.) 

You do it yourself: 49%; 
Someone else in your office does it for you (e.g., supervisor, 
timekeeper, budget officer): 49%; 
No response: 2%. 

17. In general, to what extent do you believe the ESA job codes 
charged reflect the actual work that you did during that pay period? 
(Please check one.) 

To a very great extent: 17%; 
To a great extent: 25%; 
To a moderate extent: 15%; 
To some extent: 11%; 
To little or no extent: 5%; 
No basis to judge: 25%; 
No response: 1%. 

Note: Percentages in questions 14-17 may not add to 100 due to 
rounding. 

18. If you would like to make additional comments concerning any topic 
covered in this questionnaire, please feel free to use this page or to 
attach additional pages. 

Number of additional comments supplied: 248. 

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire! 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Selected National and Regional Survey Results: 

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. 

Field Staff Time Spent on Endangered Species Program Areas: 

Table 4 presents information on how field staff reported spending 
their time among the five endangered species program areas in fiscal 
year 2001. 

Table 4: Percentage of Time Field Staff Spent among Program Areas by 
Region: 

Program Area[A]: Consultation; 
National: N = 618: 42%; 
Region 1: N = 316: 35%; 
Region 2: N = 57: 69%; 
Region 3: N = 33: 41%; 
Region 4: N = 110: 34%; 
Region 5: N = 34: 59%; 
Region 6: N = 63: 53%; 
Region 7: N = 5: 22%. 

Program Area[A]: Recovery; 
National: N = 618: 28%; 
Region 1: N = 316: 28%; 
Region 2: N = 57: 12%; 
Region 3: N = 33: 35%; 
Region 4: N = 110: 36%; 
Region 5: N = 34: 29%; 
Region 6: N = 63: 18%; 
Region 7: N = 5: 33%. 

Program Area[A]: Candidate Conservation; 
National: N = 618: 13%; 
Region 1: N = 316: 13%; 
Region 2: N = 57: 5%; 
Region 3: N = 33: 13%; 
Region 4: N = 110: 15%; 
Region 5: N = 34: 6%; 
Region 6: N = 63: 20%; 
Region 7: N = 5: 2%. 

Program Area[A]: Listing; 
National: N = 618: 10%;
Region 1: N = 316: 15%; 
Region 2: N = 57: 10%; 
Region 3: N = 33: 7%; 
Region 4: N = 110: 8%; 
Region 5: N = 34: 4%;
Region 6: N = 63: 4%;
Region 7: N = 5: 39%. 

Program Area[A]: Landowner Incentives: 
National: N = 618: 6%; 
Region 1: N = 316: 9%; 
Region 2: N = 57: 3%; 
Region 3: N = 33: 4%; 
Region 4: N = 110: 7%; 
Region 5: N = 34: 2%; 
Region 6: N = 63: 5%; 
Region 7: N = 5: 3%. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[A] The survey included a category for time spent on "general 
endangered species program activities," e.g., supervision, training, 
and administrative tasks that did not contribute directly to work on 
one of the program areas. Field staff estimated that they spent 22 
percent of their time on general endangered species activities. The 
time spent on these activities was not included when calculating the 
percentage of time spent on each of the five program areas. See 
appendix IV for information on time use calculations. 

Source: GAO survey of scientific and technical staff, questions 4-10. 

[End of table] 

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 5: Percentage of Time Field Staff Spent on Major Activities 
within Each Program Area by Region: 

Program Area/Activities: Consultation: Conducting section 7 
consultation tasks; 
National: N = 527: 80%; 
Region 1: N = 266: 75%; 
Region 2: N = 54: 82%; 
Region 3: N = 30: 84%; 
Region 4: N = 93: 58%; 
Region 5: N = 28: 99%; 
Region 6: N = 52: 97%; 
Region 7: N = 4: 100%. 

Program Area/Activities: Consultation: Conducting section 10 HCP tasks; 
National: N = 527: 20%; 
Region 1: N = 266: 25%; 
Region 2: N = 54: 18%; 
Region 3: N = 30: 17%; 
Region 4: N = 93: 42%; 
Region 5: N = 28: 1%; 
Region 6: N = 52: 3%; 
Region 7: N = 4: 0%. 

Program Area/Activities: Recovery: Developing or revising recovery 
plans; 
National: N = 381: 34%; 
Region 1: N = 174: 43%; 
Region 2: N = 39: 33%; 
Region 3: N = 25: 27%; 
Region 4: N = 76: 37%; 
Region 5: N = 23: 8%; 
Region 6: N = 43: 24%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 35%. 

Program Area/Activities: Recovery: Implementing specific recovery plan 
tasks; 
National: N = 381: 62%; 
Region 1: N = 174: 53%; 
Region 2: N = 39: 63%; 
Region 3: N = 25: 68%; 
Region 4: N = 76: 63%; 
Region 5: N = 23: 87%; 
Region 6: N = 43: 74%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 40%. 

Program Area/Activities: Recovery: Conducting delisting tasks; 
National: N = 381: 4%; 
Region 1: N = 174: 4%; 
Region 2: N = 39: 4%; 
Region 3: N = 25: 5%; 
Region 4: N = 76: [A]; 
Region 5: N = 23: 5%; 
Region 6: N = 43: 2%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 26%. 

Program Area/Activities: Candidate conservation: Gathering information 
to identify candidate species; 
National: N = 224: 26%; 
Region 1: N = 98: 23%; 
Region 2: N = 32: 56%; 
Region 3: N = 16: 61%; 
Region 4: N = 35: 28%; 
Region 5: N = 14: 48%; 
Region 6: N = 26: 6%; 
Region 7: N = 3: 50%. 

Program Area/Activities: Candidate conservation: Coordinating or 
developing conservation activities and/or agreements; 
National: N = 224: 68%; 
Region 1: N = 98: 73%; 
Region 2: N = 32: 40%; 
Region 3: N = 16: 38%; 
Region 4: N = 35: 67%; 
Region 5: N = 14: 38%; 
Region 6: N = 26: 87%; 
Region 7: N = 3: 50%. 

Program Area/Activities: Candidate conservation: Monitoring and 
evaluating agreements; 
National: N = 224: 5%; 
Region 1: N = 98: 4%; 
Region 2: N = 32: 4%; 
Region 3: N = 16: 1%; 
Region 4: N = 35: 5%; 
Region 5: N = 14: 14%; 
Region 6: N = 26: 7%; 
Region 7: N = 3: 0%. 

Program Area/Activities: Listing: Conducting work to add species to 
the threatened or endangered list; 
National: N = 197: 51%; 
Region 1: N = 103: 48%; 
Region 2: N = 22: 55%; 
Region 3: N = 9: 14%; 
Region 4: N = 26: 76%; 
Region 5: N = 3: 88%; 
Region 6: N = 33: 80%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 29%. 

Program Area/Activities: Listing: Designating critical habitat for 
listed species; 
National: N = 197: 49%; 
Region 1: N = 103: 52%; 
Region 2: N = 22: 45%; 
Region 3: N = 9: 86%; 
Region 4: N = 26: 24%; 
Region 5: N = 3: 12%; 
Region 6: N = 33: 20%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 71%. 

Program Area/Activities: Landowner incentives: Coordinating with 
landowners; 
National: N = 108: 33%; 
Region 1: N = 49: 41%; 
Region 2: N = 9: 46%; 
Region 3: N = 11: 18%; 
Region 4: N = 23: 24%; 
Region 5: N = 8: 10%; 
Region 6: N = 7: 35%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 45%. 

Program Area/Activities: Landowner incentives: Developing or 
administering agreements; 
National: N = 108: 46%; 
Region 1: N = 49: 47%; 
Region 2: N = 9: 30%; 
Region 3: N = 11: 72%; 
Region 4: N = 23: 40%; 
Region 5: N = 8: 50%; 
Region 6: N = 7: 53%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 10%. 

Program Area/Activities: Landowner incentives: Monitoring and 
evaluating agreements; 
National: N = 108: 21%; 
Region 1: N = 49: 13%; 
Region 2: N = 9: 24%; 
Region 3: N = 11: 10%; 
Region 4: N = 23: 37%; 
Region 5: N = 8: 40%; 
Region 6: N = 7: 13%; 
Region 7: N = 1: 45%. 

[A] Less than 1 percent. ] 

Source: GAO survey of scientific and technical staff, questions 4-10. 

[End of table] 

Fiscal Year 2001 Reported Activity Levels: 

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

Table 6: Reported Activity Levels by Region, Fiscal Year 2001[A]: 

Activity: Section 7 consultations: Informal consultations; 
National: 46,227; 
Region 1: 2,716; 
Region 2: 3,499; 
Region 3: 10,232; 
Region 4: 13,796; 
Region 5: 9,587; 
Region 6: 6,054; 
Region 7: 343. 

Activity: Section 7 consultations: Formal consultations; 
National: 1,143; 
Region 1: 697; 
Region 2: 150; 
Region 3: 18; 
Region 4: 96; 
Region 5: 34; 
Region 6: 141; 
Region 7: 7. 

Activity: Section 10 HCPs in development: HCP with individual 
landowner; 
National: 217; 
Region 1: 62; 
Region 2: 118; 
Region 3: 3; 
Region 4: 22; 
Region 5: 5; 
Region 6: 7; 
Region 7: 0. 

Activity: Section 10 HCPs in development: HCP with county(s) or 
municipality(s); 
National: 102; 
Region 1: 75; 
Region 2: 4; 
Region 3: 2; 
Region 4: 15; 
Region 5: 0; 
Region 6: 6; 
Region 7: 0. 

Activity: Section 10 HCPs in development: HCP with state(s); 
National: 19; 
Region 1: 11; 
Region 2: 1; 
Region 3: 0; 
Region 4: 3; 
Region 5: 3; 
Region 6: 1; 
Region 7: 0. 

Activity: Section 10 HCPs-—incidental take permits approved: HCP with 
individual landowner; 
National: 120; 
Region 1: 27; 
Region 2: 86; 
Region 3: 1; 
Region 4: 4; 
Region 5: 0; 
Region 6: 2; 
Region 7: 0. 

Activity: Section 10 HCPs-—incidental take permits approved: HCP with 
county(s) or municipality(s); 
National: 13; 
Region 1: 11; 
Region 2: 1; 
Region 3: 0; 
Region 4: 1; 
Region 5: 0; 
Region 6: 0; 
Region 7: 0. 

Activity: Section 10 HCPs-—incidental take permits approved: HCP with 
state(s); 
National: 4; 
Region 1: 2; 
Region 2: 0; 
Region 3: 0; 
Region 4: 2; 
Region 5: 0; 
Region 6: 0; 
Region 7: 0. 

Activity: Recovery plans being developed or revised: Single species 
plan; 
National: 102; 
Region 1: 40; 
Region 2: 12; 
Region 3: 15; 
Region 4: 15; 
Region 5: 5; 
Region 6: 12; 
Region 7: 3. 

Activity: Recovery plans being developed or revised: Multiple species 
plan; 
National: 30; 
Region 1: 26; 
Region 2: 0; 
Region 3: 0; 
Region 4: 3; 
Region 5: 0; 
Region 6: 1;
Region 7: 0. 

Activity: Recovery plans being implemented: Single species plan; 
National: 716; 
Region 1: 124; 
Region 2: 45; 
Region 3: 73; 
Region 4: 345; 
Region 5: 92; 
Region 6: 35; 
Region 7: 2. 

Activity: Recovery plans being implemented: Multiple species plan; 
National: 87; 
Region 1: 53; 
Region 2: 0; 
Region 3: 0; 
Region 4: 32; 
Region 5: 0; 
Region 6: 2; 
Region 7: 0. 

Candidate conservation agreement: Agreements being developed; 
National: 89; 
Region 1: 33; 
Region 2: 23; 
Region 3: 7; 
Region 4: 5; 
Region 5: 3; 
Region 6: 18;
Region 7: 0. 

Candidate conservation agreement: Agreements being implemented; 
National: 45; 
Region 1: 13; 
Region 2: 19; 
Region 3: 2; 
Region 4: 1; 
Region 5: 1; 
Region 6: 4; 
Region 7: 5. 

Listing action: Listings 
National: 49; 
Region 1: 30; 
Region 2: 2; 
Region 3: 3; 
Region 4: 5; 
Region 5: 1; 
Region 6: 7; 
Region 7: 1. 

Listing action: Critical habitat designations 
National: 429; 
Region 1: 387; 
Region 2: 8; 
Region 3: 7; 
Region 4: 16; 
Region 5: 2; 
Region 6: 6; 
Region 7: 3. 

Agreements funded by landowner incentives: Agreements being developed; 
National: 107; 
Region 1: 15; 
Region 2: 31; 
Region 3: 8; 
Region 4: 17; 
Region 5: 24; 
Region 6: 11; 
Region 7: 1. 

Agreements funded by landowner incentives: Agreements being 
implemented; 
National: 137; 
Region 1: 16; 
Region 2: 1; 
Region 3: 1; 
Region 4: 27; 
Region 5: 10; 
Region 6: 14; 
Region 7: 0. 

[A] Reported actions may not be mutually exclusive among the field 
offices. In some cases, multiple offices may have contributed to the 
action being reported and therefore more than one office may have 
reported that action. 

Source: GAO survey of field office supervisors, questions 21-31. 

[End of table] 

[End f section] 

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology: 

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. 

Interviews with Service Officials: 

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. 

Survey Methodology: 

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. 

Table 7: Field Offices Surveyed by Region: 

Region 1 - Pacific: 
Sacramento, California; 
Carlsbad, California; 
Ventura, California; 
Arcata, California; 
Klamath Falls, Oregon; 
Red Bluff, California; 
Yreka, California; 
Boise, Idaho; 
Portland, Oregon; 
Reno, Nevada; 
Lacey, Washington; 
Spokane, Washington; 
Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Region 2 - Southwest: 
Phoenix, Arizona; 
Albuquerque, New Mexico; 
Tulsa, Oklahoma; 
Arlington, Texas; 
Austin, Texas; 
Houston, Texas; 
Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Region 3 - Great Lakes; 
Bloomington, Indiana; 
Chicago, Illinois; 
Columbia, Missouri; 
East Lansing, Michigan; 
Green Bay, Wisconsin; 
Reynoldsburg, Ohio; 
Rock Island, Illinois; 
Twin Cities, Minnesota. 

Region 4 - Southeast; 
Asheville, North Carolina; 
Raleigh, North Carolina; 
Charleston, South Carolina; 
Athens, Georgia; 
Conway, Arkansas; 
Cookeville, Tennessee; 
Daphne, Alabama; 
Jackson, Mississippi; 
Jacksonville, Florida; 
Panama City, Florida; 
Vero Beach, Florida; 
Lafayette, Louisiana; 
Boqueron, Puerto Rico; 
Rio Grande, Puerto Rico. 

Region 5 - Northeast; 
Concord, New Hampshire; 
Cortland, New York; 
Pleasantville, New York; 
Annapolis, Maryland; 
State College, Pennsylvania; 
Gloucester, Virginia. 

Region 6 - Mountain Prairie; 
Lakewood, Colorado; 
Denver, Colorado; 
Manhattan, Kansas; 
Salt Lake City, Utah; 
Bismarck, North Dakota; 
Pierre, South Dakota; 
Grand Island, Nebraska; 
Helena, Montana; 
Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Region 7 - Alaska; 
Anchorage, Alaska; 
Fairbanks, Alaska; 
Juneau, Alaska. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology: 

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. 

Calculation of Time Spent in Program Areas: 

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."[Footnote 11] 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). 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service: 

United States Department of the Interior: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, D.C. 20240: 

June 14, 2002: 

Mr. Barry T. Hill: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Hill: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting Office 
report entitled, "Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds 
Are Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized," (GAO-02-581) dated 
May 17, 2002. 

While we agree that fieldwork conducted by GAO raises valid concerns 
that there may be inaccuracies in how endangered species program 
activities are charged to budgetary elements, we do not believe the 
fieldwork performed was sufficient to conclude that spending on 
endangered species activities is materially different than how 
Congress intended. Nevertheless, we take the report findings 
seriously, and will implement improvements to help ensure that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) systems, policies, 
practices and procedures more fully ensure that program activities are 
being charged to proper budgetary elements. 

Regarding the general recommendation to review the processes being 
used across the agency to record time charges, the Service will 
implement the recommendation in conjunction with the Department's 
efforts to implement Activity Based Costing by FY 2004. The Service 
will also 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 element by July 15, 2002. 

In regard to the recommendation for the development of guidelines on 
when and how to designate critical habitat for new listings, while we 
concur with the general recommendation that the Service should make 
every effort to develop guidance for the field and regional offices on 
critical habitat designation, completion of this guidance continues to 
be impacted by the need to complete other activities, including the 
listing priority guidance (which we believe will reduce future 
lawsuits, and thus reduce the portion of our resources that have to be 
devoted to compliance with court orders as well as litigation support 
costs) as well as high-priority listing activities (including those 
required by courts). Although we have not completed overall critical 
habitat guidance, we have taken several significant steps including 
conducting a national listing workshop, held in December 2001 and 
attended by more than 100 Service field and regional representatives 
(and Solicitor's office attorneys) from throughout the country, which 
was held to provide guidance to field and regional staff and to ensure 
a consistent approach to critical habitat designations and listing 
decisions was being conveyed to the Regions and the field stations. 
The workshop included presentations and discussions of a number of the 
topics to be included in future critical habitat guidance. In 
addition, we are developing a framework for the economic analysis of 
critical habitat designations, as much of our "rework" on critical 
habitat designations is due to incomplete economic analyses. We expect 
this document to be available for public review and comment by fall 
2002. 

We take the recommendation in the draft report very seriously, and 
agree that the Service headquarters should provide additional guidance 
on critical habitat designations. We intend to complete this guidance 
as soon as possible. 

The enclosure provides specific comments from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the Department's Office of Budget for your 
consideration. We hope our comments will assist you in preparing the 
final report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Paul Hoff, for: 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841: 
Julie Gerkens (202) 512-9824: 

Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Department of Commerce, through its National Marine Fisheries 
Service, is also responsible for implementing the act for marine 
species. This report does not address the National Marine Fisheries 
Service program. 

[2] In fiscal years 1999 through 2001, the endangered species program 
provided financial assistance and other incentives to landowners for 
conservation activities associated with listed and at-risk species. 

[3] The Endangered Species Act's authorization of appropriations 
expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of the 
act have remained in force and funds have been appropriated to 
implement the act in each subsequent fiscal year. 

[4] The "general endangered species program activities" category 
included such things as supervision, training, and administrative 
tasks that did not contribute directly to work on one of the program 
areas. Field staff estimated that they spent 22 percent of their time 
on general endangered species activities. This time was not included 
when calculating the percentage of time spent on each of the five 
program areas. 

[5] The term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such 
conduct. 

[6] The act requires the Service to designate critical habitat at the 
time of listing or within 12 months if more data about habitat are 
needed. The Service designates critical habitat when doing so is 
judged to be "prudent and determinable" and generally declines to 
designate habitat when doing so provides little or no additional 
conservation benefits for the species. 

[7] Fifty-eight percent of field staff reported working full-time on 
the endangered species program; all others reported spending only a 
portion of their time on these activities. We factored in the amount 
of time each individual reported spending on the endangered species 
program when calculating the total percentage of time staff devoted to 
each program area. Time spent on other activities outside of the 
program was not included in the calculations. 

[8] Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with the Service to 
determine whether a proposed action that is federally authorized, 
funded, or carried out is likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any threatened or endangered species. The Service conducts informal 
and formal consultations. Informal consultations may include 
discussions of whether a listed species inhabits the area proposed for 
action and what effect the action may have on the species. The Service 
conducts formal consultations when a federal agency determines that 
its actions may affect a listed species or its critical habitat and 
submits a written request to initiate formal consultation. Based on 
these consultations, field staff write a biological opinion analyzing 
whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize a listed species 
or adversely affect its critical habitat. If a jeopardy or adverse 
modification determination is made, the staff will propose 
alternatives to the proposed action. The federal agency then decides 
whether it can comply with these alternatives. If it cannot, it may 
abandon the project, revise and resubmit a new proposed action, or 
seek an exemption through administrative processes. 

[9] Section 10 requires landowners who are engaged in nonfederal 
activities that are likely to cause the incidental taking (i.e., harm 
to a species or its critical habitat that is incidental to, not the 
purpose of, an otherwise lawful act) of a listed species to develop a 
habitat conservation plan (HCP) and obtain a permit allowing for 
incidental take. An HCP specifies, among other things, what measures 
the landowner will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts on listed 
species. The field offices assist applicants in preparing the HCP and 
coordinate with the appropriate regional office in issuing the 
incidental take permit. 

[10] Reported actions may not be mutually exclusive among the field 
offices. In some cases (e.g., HCPs, recovery plans) multiple offices 
contributed to the action being reported and therefore more than one 
office may have reported that action. 

[11] The category of "general endangered species program activities" 
included such things as supervision, training, and administrative 
tasks that did not contribute directly to work on one of the program 
areas. The time spent on these activities was not included when 
calculating the percentage of time spent on each of the five program 
areas. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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 
analysis, 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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext 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 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: