Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.-J <br /> <br />, .~ .. . <br /> <br />" , <br />-..--:<:--"""""--_.... .-"'--... .... <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />u02331 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />We also found that resources needed to comply with the endangered species <br />program were difficult to estimate. For example, in the listing area, <br />the Endangered Species Act requires that the Service respond in a <br />prescribed, timely manner to petitions for official listing received from <br />individuals. In the case of highly visible species, the amount of time <br />spent on petition responses and resultant media and public interest can <br />be significant. Officials at Region 1 noted that response to petitions <br />for listing the Northern spotted owl and the desert tortoise involved <br />such extensive use of personnel that the Region's overall ability to <br />complete its basic work load was adversely impacted. However, without a <br />system to track employee time, it was not possible for the Service to <br />reasonably estimate the amount of time actually spent in such cases and <br />to adequately plan for future listing resource needs. <br /> <br />We also found that consultation was an area which was susceptible to <br />resource volatility because the Service had no control over the number <br />and timing of Federal projects which impacted endangered and threatened <br />species. The Service, in accordance with the Act, must respond to <br />requests for species consultations from other agencies. Service <br />officials at most of the offices visited agreed that personnel time and <br />related costs were much greater than amounts budgeted. Officials stated <br />that ecological services funds, as well as funds budgeted for listing and <br />recovery, were all used to supplement the budget shortage in this <br />subactivity. An official at the Colorado Field Office stated that his <br />consultation budget was usually exhausted a third of the way through the <br />fiscal year and that funding from other sources was used to supplement <br />the shortfall in consultation funding. The Sacramento Field Office <br />reported that when budgeted consultation funds were totally expended <br />(usually by July of the fiscal year), consultation costs were then <br />charged or transferred to any endangered species subactivity that had <br />available funds. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />We believe that by not accurately tracking and reporting the actual <br />expenditures associated with endangered species program activities, the <br />Service not only lacks valid historical cost data necessary for effective <br />program planning but also may be in violation of Congressional <br />reprogramming guidelines. House and Senate Appropriations Committee <br />guidelines require that proposals for reprogramming be submitted in <br />writing before implementation if such reprogramming exceeds $250,000 <br />annually or results in an increase or decrease of more than 10 percent <br />annually in affected programs or subactivities. By charging differing <br />subactivities (such as listing, consultation, or recovery) for work not <br />actually associated with those subactivities, the Service is informally <br />reprogramming funds. Conversely, by not tracking these charges, the <br />Service does not have the information needed to determine whether formal <br />reprogramming procedures should be initiated. In addition, we believe <br />that the use of personnel resources for the endangered species program <br />which are funded by a separate appropriation, such as ecological <br />services, is a possible violation of Title 31, Part 1301, of the United <br />States Code, which states in part that appropriated funds "must be <br />applied solely to the objects for which appropriations were made and for <br />no others.. <br /> <br />17 <br />