Endangered Species
Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program Gao ID: GAO-03-23 December 9, 2002Since the 1980s, biologists have been concerned about declines in the Mojave Desert Tortoise, which ranges through millions of acres in the western United States. The tortoise was first listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in Utah in 1980; it was later listed as threatened rangewide in 1990. The listing and designation of critical habitat for the tortoise, as well as recommendations in the tortoise recovery plan, have been controversial. In our report, we evaluate--assisted by scientists identified by the National Academy of Sciences--the scientific basis for key decisions related to the tortoise, assess the effectiveness of actions taken to conserve desert tortoises, determine the status of the population, and identify costs and benefits associated with desert tortoise recovery actions.
The 1990 listing of the desert tortoise, the critical habitat designation, and recommendations in the recovery plan for the tortoise were reasonable, given the information available at the time. Under the Endangered Species Act, listing and critical habitat decisions must be based on the best available scientific and commercial data. These decisions and the recovery plan recommendations were based on sources that reflected existing knowledge about desert tortoises. To protect the tortoise, government agencies have restricted grazing and off-road vehicle use and taken other protective actions in desert tortoise habitat, but the effectiveness of these actions is unknown. Research is underway in several areas, including tortoise disease, predation, and nutrition, but the research has not assessed the effectiveness of the protective actions. Furthermore, the status of desert tortoise populations is unclear because data are unavailable to demonstrate population trends. Before the tortoise may be delisted, populations must increase or remain stable for at least 25 years--one generation of desert tortoises. Determining the trends will cost an estimated $7.5 million in the first 5 years, plus additional monitoring every 3 to 5 years at a cost of about $1.5 million per year of monitoring. The Fish and Wildlife Service depends on other agencies and organizations to assist with funding and monitoring, but these agencies and organizations cannot guarantee assistance from year to year because of other priorities. Expenditures on desert tortoise recovery since the species' first listing in 1980 exceed $100 million, but the exact investment is unknown. The investment includes $92 million in "reasonably identifiable" expenditures for the tortoise, plus staff time valued at about $10.6 million. The overall economic impact of the tortoise recovery program--including benefits as well as the costs incurred by local governments, landowners, and developers as a result of restrictions--is unknown.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-23, Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-23
entitled 'Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term
Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program'
which was released on December 19, 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
December 2002:
ENDANGERED SPECIES:
Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert
Tortoise Recovery Program:
GAO-03-23:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-23, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Resources,
House of Representatives, and Senator Robert Bennett:
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for the Mojave
Desert Tortoise Recovery Program:
Why GAO Did this Study:
Since the 1980s, biologists have been concerned about declines in the
Mojave
Desert Tortoise, which ranges through millions of acres in the western
United States. The tortoise was first listed as a threatened species
under
the Endangered Species Act in Utah in 1980; it was later listed as
threatened
rangewide in 1990. The listing and designation of critical habitat
for the
tortoise, as well as recommendations in the tortoise recovery plan,
have been
controversial. In our report, we evaluate”assisted by scientists
identified
by the National Academy of Sciences”the scientific basis for key
decisions
related to the tortoise, assess the effectiveness of actions taken to
conserve
desert tortoises, determine the status of the population, and
identify
costs and benefits associated with desert tortoise recovery actions.
What GAO Found:
The 1990 listing of the desert tortoise, the critical habitat
designation,
and recommendations in the recovery plan for the tortoise were
reasonable,
given the information available at the time. Under the Endangered
Species
Act, listing and critical habitat decisions must be based on the
best
available scientific and commercial data. These decisions and the
recovery
plan recommendations were based on sources that reflected existing
knowledge
about desert tortoises. To protect the tortoise, government
agencies have
restricted grazing and off-road vehicle use and taken other protective
actions
in desert tortoise habitat, but the effectiveness of these actions is
unknown.
Research is underway in several areas, including tortoise disease,
predation,
and nutrition, but the research has not assessed the effectiveness
of the
protective actions. Furthermore, the status of desert tortoise
populations
is unclear because data are unavailable to demonstrate population
trends.
Before the tortoise may be delisted, populations must increase or
remain
stable for at least 25 years”one generation of desert tortoises.
Determining
the trends will cost an estimated $7.5 million in the first 5
years, plus
additional monitoring every 3 to 5 years at a cost of about $1.5
million per
year of monitoring. The Fish and Wildlife Service depends on other
agencies
and organizations to assist with funding and monitoring, but these
agencies
and organizations cannot guarantee assistance from year to year
because of
other priorities. Expenditures on desert tortoise recovery since
the species‘
first listing in 1980 exceed $100 million, but the exact
investment is
unknown. The investment includes $92 million in ’reasonably
identifiable“
expenditures for the tortoise, plus staff time valued at about
$10.6 million.
The overall economic impact of the tortoise recovery program”
including
benefits as well as the costs incurred by local governments,
landowners,
and developers as a result of restrictions”is unknown.
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To ensure that the most effective actions are taken to protect
the tortoise,
we recommend that the Fish and Wildlife Service develop and
implement a
coordinated research strategy for linking land management
decisions with
research results and periodically reassess the recovery plan
for the tortoise.
We also recommend that the Secretary of the Interior identify
and assess
options for funding long-term rangewide population monitoring.
The department
concurred with our recommendations.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202) 512-3841,
hillb@gao.gov.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recommendations
for Recovery Were Reasonable:
Actions Have Been Taken to Protect the Desert Tortoise, but Their
Effectiveness Is Unknown:
Data Are Insufficient to Determine the Status of the Desert Tortoise
Rangewide, and Continued Funding for Monitoring Is Uncertain:
Expenditures for Desert Tortoise Recovery Exceed $100 Million, but the
Total Economic Impact Has Not Been Quantified:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Actions on Behalf of the Mojave Desert Tortoise:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Acres Designated as Critical Habitat, by Landowner and State:
Table 2: Federal and State Agencies‘ Expenditures on the Desert
Tortoise, Fiscal Years 1989 through 1998:
Figures:
Figure 1: Mojave Desert Tortoise:
Figure 2: Map of Mojave Desert Tortoise‘s Range:
Figure 3: Shells of Juvenile Desert Tortoises Likely Killed by Ravens:
Figure 4: Percentage of Threat Related Topics Presented at Desert
Tortoise Council Symposia, by Topic, 1989 through 2001:
Figure 5: Reported Expenditures on the Desert Tortoise, Fiscal Years
1989 through 1998:
Figure 6: Total Expenditures, Including Land Acquisition, for Species
with the Highest Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1989 through 1998:
Figure 7: Trend in Five Agencies‘ Staff-Time Investment in Tortoise
Work, Fiscal Years 1980 through 2001:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
DFG: Department of Fish and Game:
ERS: Economic Research Service:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 9, 2002:
The Honorable James V. Hansen
Chairman, Committee on Resources
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Robert Bennett
United States Senate:
Since the 1980s, biologists have been concerned about apparent declines
in populations of the Mojave desert tortoise, a species that is
considered to be an indicator of the health of the desert environment.
The desert tortoise ranges through millions of acres in Arizona,
California, Nevada and Utah.[Footnote 1] Population declines in the
species may be caused in part by a contagious, and sometimes fatal,
upper respiratory tract disease and by other factors such as drought,
predation, illegal collection, and habitat degradation or loss
associated with human activities such as development, livestock
grazing, and recreation. Together, these conditions led the Department
of the Interior‘s Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to protect the
desert tortoise under the Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 2] In 1980,
the Service designated, or ’listed,“ a portion of the desert tortoise
population in Utah as ’threatened.“ In 1989, the Service temporarily
listed the rest of the Mojave population of desert tortoises as
’endangered“ on an emergency basis because of an outbreak of upper
respiratory tract disease. In 1990, the Service issued its final
determination that the Mojave population of desert tortoises was
’threatened“ throughout its range.
The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to restore species that are
at risk of extinction so that they can live in self-sustaining
populations. At the time a species is listed, the act generally
requires the Service to designate critical habitat essential to the
conservation of the species. In 1994, the Service designated critical
habitat covering 6.4 million acres in the desert tortoise‘s range. The
critical habitat encompasses federal land managed by the Department of
the Interior‘s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park
Service, as well as Department of Defense installations, and state-and
privately-owned land. Shortly after designating critical habitat, the
Service published a recovery plan for the desert tortoise. To protect
desert tortoises, the plan recommends restrictions, among other things,
on off-road vehicle access, military maneuvers that destroy habitat,
clearing for agriculture and development, and livestock grazing. Some
of these restrictions have been controversial, and some users question
whether the restrictions are necessary to the desert tortoise‘s
recovery. The plan also recommends monitoring to determine the status
of desert tortoise populations and track their population trends. Under
the act, when a population is considered stable and no longer needs the
act‘s protection, the species may be removed from the threatened or
endangered list.
In this report, we (1) evaluate the scientific basis for the 1990
listing, the critical habitat designation, and the recovery plan
recommendations for the desert tortoise; (2) assess the effectiveness
of actions taken by federal agencies and others to conserve desert
tortoises; (3) describe what is known about trends in tortoise
populations; and (4) identify costs and benefits associated with desert
tortoise recovery actions since the desert tortoise was first listed in
1980, to the extent that data were available.
To evaluate the scientific basis for the listing decision, critical
habitat designation, and recovery plan recommendations, we contracted
with the National Academy of Sciences to identify and assist in the
selection of scientists with expertise in relevant areas, such as
conservation biology and desert ecology, to provide technical
assistance in reviewing the reasonableness of those key decisions in
light of the scientific information on which they were based. The
scientists we consulted and other details on the scope and methodology
of our review are presented in appendix II.
Results in Brief:
The scientists we consulted agreed that the 1990 listing, the critical
habitat designation, and the recommendations in the recovery plan for
the desert tortoise were reasonable, given the information available at
the time. The Endangered Species Act requires that listing decisions
and critical habitat designations be based on the best available
scientific and commercial data (i.e., biological or trade data such as
that obtained from scientific or commercial publications), and that
recovery plans be developed and implemented if doing so would conserve
the species. The listing decision, critical habitat designation, and
recovery plan recommendations for the tortoise were based on diverse
sources; as is often the case with an at-risk species, limited
published research was available, and the Service also relied on
unpublished research and government reports.
Federal agencies and others, including BLM, the National Park Service,
military installations, and state and local governments, have taken a
variety of actions to benefit desert tortoises, but the effectiveness
of these actions is unknown because the necessary analyses have not
been done. In response to recommendations in the recovery plan,
agencies have restricted off-road motorized vehicle use, livestock
grazing, and other activities in tortoise habitat; closed illegal
garbage dumps to reduce feeding opportunities for ravens that prey on
young desert tortoises; fenced highways to keep tortoises from being
run over; and implemented educational programs to inform the public
about tortoise conservation. Some of the actions are controversial,
such as restrictions on livestock grazing. As also recommended in the
recovery plan, research efforts are underway in tortoise health and
life history, disease, predation by ravens, and effects of livestock
grazing and off-road vehicles, among other areas, but most research has
not been directed to assessing the effectiveness of land use
restrictions and other protective actions. Without knowing how
effective the protective actions are, the Service and land managers
cannot ensure that their limited resources are focused on the most
effective actions. Furthermore, the recovery plan recommends
reassessment of its findings and recommendations every 3 to 5 years in
light of ongoing research. However, the Service has not reassessed the
plan for a number of reasons, such as other pressing needs for limited
resources. Given the controversy surrounding some of the recommended
restrictions and the large number of acres and land users affected, we
believe that it is important to ensure that management decisions are
supported by research. Accordingly, we are recommending that the
Service and land management agencies develop and implement a
coordinated research strategy to link land management decisions and
research results, and that the Service reassess the recovery plan and
revise it as necessary.
Data are not available to demonstrate population trends so despite
actions taken to benefit tortoises, the status of desert tortoise
populations is unclear. Under the recovery plan, before the tortoise
may be considered for removal from the list of threatened and
endangered species, a scientifically credible monitoring plan must show
that the population has increased or remained stable for at least
25 years (one generation of desert tortoises). For decades, researchers
have gathered data on the health and status of desert tortoise
populations in certain study areas, but these data cannot be reliably
extrapolated to the entire population. In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife
Service began a monitoring effort to develop a baseline estimate of
desert tortoise populations rangewide. Developing the baseline will
require a total of 5 years to complete at an estimated total cost of
approximately $7.5 million. Determining population trends will require
additional monitoring every 3 to 5 years and will cost approximately
$1.5 million per year of monitoring. To assist with funding and
conducting the monitoring, the Service depends on other agencies and
organizations. However, because these agencies and organizations have
other priorities, they cannot guarantee assistance from year to year.
Because population trend monitoring is essential to understanding how
desert tortoises are faring and to ultimately delist the species, we
are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior work with the
Secretary of Defense to identify and consider alternative ways to
ensure continued funding, such as through memorandums of agreement.
Expenditures on desert tortoise recovery exceed $100 million (in
constant 2001 dollars) since the species‘ first listing in 1980, but
the exact investment to date is not known. Only since fiscal year 1989
has the Service been required to annually compile and report to the
Congress federal and state expenditures on a species-by-species basis.
These expenditures are only those that are ’reasonably identifiable“
for a listed species, such as expenditures for land acquisitions,
project materials, or staff time spent on activities to protect the
species. For fiscal years 1989 through 1998, the Service reported that
federal agencies and states spent a total of about $92 million (in
constant 2001 dollars) on behalf of the desert tortoise. The
$92 million spent on the desert tortoise represented about 2.8 percent
of the $3.3 billion that agencies reported spending on all threatened
and endangered species from fiscal years 1989 through 1998.
Comprehensive data on reported expenditures since 1998 were not
available because the Service has not compiled and issued to the
Congress an annual expenditure report, as required. According to the
Service, timely issuance of the report has been hampered by some
agencies‘ tardiness in submitting the requested data, among other
things. To augment the reported expenditure data, we requested
estimates of the time that staff from five key agencies spent on
tortoise-related activities since 1980. During the years not covered by
the annual expenditures report (i.e., 1980 through 1988 and 1999
through 2001), these five agencies reported spending staff time valued
at about $10.6 million on tortoise-related activities. Aside from the
federal and state expenditures, the overall economic impact (e.g.,
benefits as well as the costs incurred by local governments,
landowners, and developers as a result of restrictions) associated with
the tortoise recovery effort is unknown, although some limited analyses
have been done. To improve reporting of expenditures for threatened and
endangered species, we are making recommendations intended to ensure
the timeliness of the Service‘s report to the Congress.
We provided the Departments of Defense and the Interior with a draft of
this report for review and comment. The Department of the Interior
concurred with all of our recommendations and provided several
technical clarifications that we have made as appropriate. The
department‘s letter is presented in appendix III. The Department of
Defense provided oral comments consisting of technical clarifications
that we have made as appropriate.
Background:
The Mojave Desert tortoise is a relatively large reptile, with adults
measuring up to 15 inches in shell length (see fig. 1). Desert
tortoises live in creosote bush and Joshua tree habitats in valleys,
plains, and washes at elevations generally ranging up to 4,000 feet
above sea level. In these habitats, desert tortoises construct and live
in burrows and spend a majority of their life below ground. Desert
tortoises may live for 50 years or more in the wild, and females do not
breed until they are at least 15 years old. They usually lay one or
more clutches of about 6 to 8 eggs between mid-April and the first week
of July. Although desert tortoises can withstand prolonged periods of
drought, females may not lay eggs if forage is unavailable. Survival of
juveniles is thought to be low; some researchers estimate that only 2
to 3 per 100 hatched may live to become adults.
Figure 1: Mojave Desert Tortoise:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
The Mojave Desert tortoise‘s range lies north and west of the Colorado
River in California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, and
northwestern Arizona (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Map of Mojave Desert Tortoise‘s Range:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
Apparent declines in tortoise populations have been attributed to many
factors including habitat loss or degradation, drought, and predation
on juvenile tortoises by ravens, coyotes, domestic dogs, and other
animals (see fig. 3). According to the Service, habitat loss has
occurred as a result of increasing amounts of urban development,
military operations, and recreational uses such as off-road vehicle
use, in the tortoise‘s range. Habitat degradation has been attributed
to domestic livestock grazing, particularly in livestock watering and
loading areas. Other factors that may have caused population declines
include mortality through vandalism or accidental road kill and removal
of tortoises from their habitat for pets, food, or commercial purposes.
Respiratory and shell diseases have also been observed in desert
tortoise populations.
Figure 3: Shells of Juvenile Desert Tortoises Likely Killed by Ravens
(quarter dollar shows scale):
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
Before a species, such as the desert tortoise, can receive protection
under the Endangered Species Act, the Secretary of the Interior,
through the Fish and Wildlife Service, is required to use the best
available scientific and commercial data (e.g., biological or trade
data obtained from scientific or commercial publications,
administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials, or experts on
the subject) to decide whether the species is at risk of extinction.
The Endangered Species Act specifies the following five factors for
identifying at-risk species, any one of which is sufficient to
determine that a species qualifies for the act‘s protections:
* present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a
species habitat or range;
* overuse for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
* disease or predation;
* inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or:
* other natural or manmade factors affecting a species‘ continued
existence.
Once the Service determines that a species should receive the act‘s
protection, it can list the species as threatened or endangered. As of
July 2002, 517 animal species and 744 plant species were listed as
threatened or endangered in the United States.
The act prohibits the ’taking“ of any listed species of animal and
defines ’take“ as to harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
However, under the act the Service may issue permits that allow the
taking of a listed species if the taking is incidental to, rather than
the purpose of, an otherwise legal activity. In most cases, the Service
must develop a recovery plan for listed species that specifies actions
needed to recover the species so that it can be removed from the list
of protected species under the act, or ’delisted.“[Footnote 3]
Federal agencies must comply with prohibitions against taking a
threatened or endangered species and must consult with the Service to
determine the effect, if any, that their activities may have on listed
species. In particular, federal agencies must ensure that their
activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, or result in destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat.[Footnote 4] If any proposed activities will
jeopardize a species or adversely modify its critical habitat, the
Service will identify reasonable and prudent alternative activities. In
addition, federal agencies have a broader directive under the act to
use their authorities to carry out programs to conserve threatened and
endangered species.
Listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recommendations
for Recovery Were Reasonable:
Scientists we consulted agreed that the listing of the desert tortoise
in 1990, the critical habitat designation, and the recommendations in
the recovery plan were reasonable, based on the limited data available
on the desert tortoise when the relevant decisions were made. These
decisions were made on the basis of a variety of information, including
published and unpublished research and government studies. The
scientists we consulted recognized that, as is often the case when
making such decisions, little published data on the species were
available. However, they agreed that the Service‘s decisions were
appropriate and consistent with their understanding of the agency‘s
responsibilities under the act.
Listing and Critical Habitat Decisions Were Based on the Best Science
Available at the Time:
The Endangered Species Act requires that listing decisions be based
solely on the best scientific and commercial data available without
taking into account economic factors. Although the Service is required
to seek out the best data available at the time, it is not required to
generate additional data. The listing decision for the desert tortoise
was based on a variety of information, including published research,
meeting and symposium proceedings, and government reports. Generally,
published, peer-reviewed research is considered the most reliable
information source because the research methods and conclusions have
been reviewed by other scientists before publication. However, other
sources such as unpublished research, meeting proceedings, and
government reports can provide important information for making listing
and other decisions. Moreover, several scientists said that listing
decisions are often necessarily based on limited data, because funding
for research on a species is typically scarce until after that species
is listed.
The listing decision describes how each of the five listing criteria
that make a species eligible for protection under the act applies to
the desert tortoise, with habitat loss and disease cited as threatening
the tortoise‘s continued existence. The scientists we consulted agreed
that, despite the limited amount of quantitative data on the desert
tortoise that was available at the time of its listing, the decision to
list it as threatened was reasonable. In particular, they cited
increases in threats such as diseases and habitat loss as important
factors making listing necessary. In addition, researches noted
declines in numbers. For example, in the western Mojave Desert in
California, researchers found that some populations decreased by as
much as 90 percent between the 1970s and the mid-1990s; in Nevada,
study plots also generally showed declines ranging from 10 to
39 percent since the late 1970s. The scientists we consulted also noted
that desert tortoise populations appear to continue to decline. Some
said that the listing of the desert tortoise was an unusual step by the
Service because, at the time of the listing, there were still desert
tortoises occurring across a large range; yet they recognized that
listing it as threatened was consistent with their understanding of the
act‘s intent to protect species whose numbers are declining and are at
risk of becoming endangered.
When designating critical habitat, the Service must also use the best
scientific and commercial information available. Unlike for listings,
however, the Service must also consider the economic impact of the
critical habitat designation. The primary source of information for the
designation was a draft of the recovery plan for the tortoise that
recommended protection for 14 separate areas of habitat. The Service
adjusted the boundaries for these 14 areas to generally follow legal
property boundaries and elevation contours in order to remove as much
unsuitable habitat as possible and to reflect additional biological
information. Some areas that were already protected, such as Joshua
Tree National Monument and the Desert National Wildlife Range, were
intended to be excluded from critical habitat because the habitat
within them was already receiving protection as desert tortoise
habitat.[Footnote 5] After making these adjustments, the Service
identified 12 areas in its final critical habitat designation--seven in
California, one in Nevada, one in Utah, and three that span more than
one state--that total about 6.4 million acres (see table 1).[Footnote
6]
Table 1: Acres Designated as Critical Habitat, by Landowner and State:
Landowner: Arizona: [Empty]; California: [Empty]; Nevada:
[Empty]; Utah: [Empty]; Total acres: [Empty].
Landowner: Federal; BLM[A]; Arizona: 286,800; California: 2,375,807;
Nevada:
1,085,000; Utah: 89,400; Total acres: 3,837,007.
Landowner: Federal; Military; Arizona: 0; California: 242,200; Nevada:
0; Utah:
0; Total acres: 242,200.
Landowner: Federal; National Park Service[A]; Arizona: 41,600;
California:
955,313; Nevada: 103,600; Utah: 0; Total acres: 1,100,513.
Landowner: State; Arizona: 5,700; California: 132,900; Nevada: 0; Utah:
27,600; Total acres: 166,200.
Landowner: Private[B]; Arizona: 600; California: 1,051,500; Nevada:
35,800; Utah: 12,100; Total acres: 1,100,000.
Landowner: Total acres; Arizona: 334,700; California: 4,757,720;
Nevada: 1,224,400; Utah: 129,100; Total acres: 6,445,920.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service.
[A] BLM in California originally had 3,327,400 acres of critical
habitat, but the total was reduced to 2,375,807 acres after
179,130 acres of critical habitat were transferred to Joshua Tree
National Park under the California Desert Protection Act of 1994;
another 772,463 acres of critical habitat became part of the Mojave
National Preserve, which was created under the 1994 act.
[B] Includes 1,600 acres owned by the Paiute Indian Tribe in Utah.
[End of table]
The scientists we consulted said the size and number of the areas
designated as critical habitat were reasonable given the available
data, but found that the rationales for drawing the specific boundaries
were not well explained in the decision documents. The size of the
areas was determined based on estimates of how dense a desert tortoise
population should be to ensure the population‘s continued existence--
estimates that the scientists noted were based on limited quantitative
research. Several of the scientists we consulted observed that the
critical habitat areas appear to have been designated where desert
tortoise populations were found at the time. One scientist suggested
that the designation of the areas of critical habitat may have been
conservative, and that if the designation was done today, the protected
areas might be even larger.
The Recovery Plan‘s Recommendations Reflected Available Scientific
Information:
In contrast with the requirements for listing and critical habitat, the
Endangered Species Act does not specify the type of information that
should be used to develop recovery plans. Instead, the act requires
that recovery plans contain three specific elements: (1) a description
of site-specific management actions necessary for the conservation and
survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable criteria that, when
met, would result in the removal of the species from the threatened or
endangered species list, or delisting; and (3) estimates of the time
and cost required to carry out the plan. However, Service policy
dictates that recovery plans should seek the best information to
achieve recovery of a species. While not in effect at the time the
tortoise recovery team was founded, Service policy is that teams
developing recovery plans should have diverse areas of expertise and
may include personnel from many different organizations, including
officials from other federal agencies and states, and other recognized
experts.[Footnote 7] According to the Service, recovery plans impose no
obligations on any agency, entity, or persons to implement the various
tasks contained within them.
The recovery plan for the desert tortoise addresses each of the three
required elements. The plan describes site-specific management actions
for the 14 separate areas that it recommends be established such as
discontinuing livestock grazing, constructing fencing along highways to
reduce tortoise road kill, monitoring the health of desert tortoises
within the areas, eliminating raven nest and perch sites, constructing
signs to delineate the boundaries of the protected areas, and
restricting off-road vehicle use. The plan also recommends that
agencies develop programs and facilities to educate the public about
the status and management needs of the desert tortoise and its habitat,
and that research be conducted to monitor and guide recovery efforts.
In addition, the plan includes estimates of the time frame and costs
for implementation. Lastly, as the act requires, the plan describes the
criteria that must be met before the desert tortoise population may be
considered for delisting. The criteria are:
* as determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the
population within a recovery unit must exhibit a statistically
significant upward trend or remain stationary for at least 25 years
(one desert tortoise generation);
* enough habitat must be protected within a recovery unit, or the
habitat and desert tortoise populations must be managed intensively
enough to ensure long-term population viability;
* provisions must be made for population management within each
recovery unit so that population growth rates are stable or increasing;
* regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments must be
implemented that provide for long-term protection of desert tortoises
and their habitat; and:
* the population in a recovery unit is unlikely to need protection
under the Endangered Species Act in the foreseeable future.
The scientists we consulted agreed that the recommendations in the
recovery plan describing site-specific management actions are
reasonable, and reflect the best information available at the time.
They observed that because much was still unknown about the severity of
specific threats to desert tortoises at the time the plan was
developed, its recommendations were made without establishing
priorities that would reflect differences in the seriousness of the
threats. For example, the plan does not differentiate among the
seriousness of the threats from uncontrolled vehicle use off designated
roads as compared to livestock grazing or dumping and littering.
Nonetheless, the scientists commented that the plan was a significant,
resource-intensive effort; indeed, one scientist commented that the
expertise of the scientists comprising the recovery team was
unprecedented. The team included experts in reptile and tortoise
biology, desert ecosystems, population analyses, and conservation
biology. The team also coordinated with numerous people and
organizations, including federal and state agencies and officials, and
others with expertise in desert tortoise and land management issues.
Actions Have Been Taken to Protect the Desert Tortoise, but Their
Effectiveness Is Unknown:
Federal agencies and others have taken a variety of actions to benefit
desert tortoises, reflecting recommendations in the recovery plan or
efforts to minimize the effects of potentially harmful activities, but
the effectiveness of those actions is not known because the necessary
analyses to measure their effectiveness have not been done. Federal,
state, and local agencies and others have acquired habitat, restricted
certain uses, and promote education programs about the species, and
research has been conducted or is underway on such topics as the causes
of disease in tortoises, their nutritional needs, and the effects of
human activities on tortoises. However, no process has been established
for integrating agencies‘ management decisions regarding the desert
tortoise with research results. As a result, Service and land managers
cannot be certain that they are focusing their limited resources on the
most effective actions. In addition, the recovery plan recommends that
its recommendations be reassessed every 3 to 5 years, but the plan has
not been reassessed since its 1994 issuance. Such a reassessment would
allow the Service to evaluate whether the plan‘s recommendations are
still sound or should be revised in light of more recent research.
Many Actions Have Been Taken or Are Underway to Protect Tortoises:
The recovery plan recommends securing habitat to aid in the recovery
and continued existence of the desert tortoise. In addition to managing
land they already own, federal and state agencies--which collectively
manage over 80 percent of tortoise critical habitat--and private groups
have made efforts to acquire privately owned land for desert tortoise
habitat through land exchanges, purchases, or donations. Much of the
acquired land is surrounded by or adjacent to federally or state-owned
tortoise habitat, and its acquisition makes management easier by
consolidating acres needing protection. These land acquisitions have
occurred primarily in California and Utah, as almost all tortoise
critical habitat in Nevada and Arizona is already federally owned. For
example, from 1995 through 2001, BLM acquired approximately
337,000 acres in California, valued at almost $38 million, primarily
for the benefit of the desert tortoise. Land acquisition has also been
an important feature in Utah, where BLM and the State of Utah have
acquired, through purchase and exchange, more than 7,700 acres of
nonfederal land valued at almost $62 million, for the benefit of the
tortoise. In addition to these acquisitions, the Desert Tortoise
Preserve Committee, a nonprofit organization, acquired more than
175 acres of privately owned lands within the 39.5-square-mile Desert
Tortoise Natural Area in California. The Committee, in cooperation with
another conservation organization, also purchased 1,360 acres of
privately owned land in desert tortoise critical habitat in the central
Mojave Desert. The Committee has historically donated or sold land it
acquires to the federal government or the state of California.
The recovery plan for the desert tortoise also recommends specific land
use restrictions such as restricting livestock grazing, harmful
military maneuvers, and excessive and destructive recreational uses.
The responsibility for implementing many of these actions falls to the
entities that manage land in desert tortoise habitat, including the
Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Department of
Defense, and state agencies. These agencies have restricted some
permitted uses on lands with tortoise habitat and taken protective
steps to aid in the species‘ recovery. For example, Washington County,
Utah, purchased permits allowing livestock grazing on 30,725 acres of
federal land in tortoise habitat in Utah at a cost of $114,000 from
ranchers who were willing to sell their land. BLM then retired these
permits from use. In addition, since 1991, BLM has prohibited sheep
grazing on more than 800,000 acres of tortoise habitat in California;
the agency has also restricted cattle grazing in all or part of several
other grazing allotments in California either entirely or seasonally
when tortoises are active, as part of a settlement agreement with
conservation groups.[Footnote 8] The recovery plan‘s recommended
restrictions on livestock grazing are controversial because they affect
a large number of acres and were recommended on the basis of limited
published data. Other significant restrictions that benefit the
tortoise include those addressing off-highway vehicles. For example,
BLM‘s off-highway vehicle management plan limits off-highway vehicle
use to existing approved areas, specific courses for competitive
events, or designated roads and trails to protect sensitive habitats,
species, and cultural resources. However, officials note that enforcing
compliance among individual users has proven to be difficult.
Agencies have also undertaken projects on their lands to control random
events such as road kill on highways and human vandalism, and other
threats that are associated with human development, such as disease
(which may be spread when captive tortoises are released into the wild)
and predation by ravens and other animals (which are aggravated by
humans through the presence of landfills and other sources of food and
water). For example, agencies and others have installed hundreds of
miles of fencing to keep tortoises away from roads and other hazardous
areas. Joshua Tree National Park installed breaks, or ’tortoise cuts,“
in the curbs along more than 5 miles of newly constructed park roads in
2001 to avoid trapping desert tortoises in roads. To reduce raven
populations and thus discourage predation on juvenile tortoises, Mojave
National Preserve has cleaned up approximately 50 acres of illegal
garbage dumps, and Joshua Tree National Park has removed a total of
almost 550,000 pounds of garbage from 23 sites. The Army‘s National
Training Center at Fort Irwin also tries to reduce raven populations by
covering its landfill with three times as much dirt as it would
otherwise in order to reduce its attractiveness to the birds. In 2000
and 2001, Edwards Air Force Base closed 42 ’pitfalls“ (such as mine
shafts, wells, and irrigation pipes) in critical habitat that were
potentially hazardous to desert tortoises.
Protective actions may also be required to offset, or mitigate, the
effects of potentially harmful activities. For example, development may
occur on nonfederal lands with desert tortoises, but before the Service
will issue a permit allowing tortoises to be taken or habitat to be
disturbed, the applicant must develop a plan describing mitigating
actions--such as timing a project to minimize the likelihood of
disturbing tortoises, acquiring replacement habitat to compensate for
the disturbed acreage, or the payment of fees to be used for tortoise
conservation. Some local governments have obtained permits that allow
tortoises to be taken so that habitat within their jurisdictions can be
developed. For example, Clark County, Nevada--which includes Las Vegas-
-has obtained a 30-year permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service that
allows listed species, including tortoises, to be taken incidental to
development in the county. The permit allows development of up to
145,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat on nonfederal land and
requires that land developers pay $550 to a mitigation fund for every
acre developed within the county. The mitigation fees are used to pay
for conservation projects in the county to offset the effects of
development on desert tortoises and other species. Similarly,
Washington County, Utah, has a 20-year permit authorizing the take of
1,169 tortoises incidental to land development in the county.
Washington County‘s primary means of mitigating the effects of
development on desert tortoises was to establish the 61,000-acre Red
Cliffs Reserve in which no development is allowed; approximately
39,000 acres are occupied desert tortoise habitat. BLM and the state of
Utah manage most of the land within the reserve. Elsewhere in the
county, development is allowed on approximately 12,000 acres of
nonfederal land. Developers pay $250 plus 0.2 percent of the
development costs for each acre they develop; the fees are used to
manage the reserve.
Agencies and others also rely on education to reduce threats to
tortoises. For example:
* Department of Defense installations in tortoise habitat require all
soldiers to attend training that raises their awareness about the
status of the tortoise and teaches them what to do if they encounter a
tortoise,
* BLM‘s Statewide Desert Tortoise Management Policy includes a detailed
public education program,
* Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve have
developed educational kits for use in schools, and:
* Clark County, Nevada, uses radio and newspaper announcements to
target desert users, reminding them to deposit garbage only at garbage
dumps in order to control raven populations, shoot responsibly, and
drive on roads.
Appendix I discusses specific actions agencies have taken in more
detail.
Effectiveness of Recovery and Mitigation Actions Is Unclear Because
Research and Management Decisions Are Not Integrated:
The recovery plan recommends that research be conducted to guide and
monitor desert tortoise recovery efforts and states that as new
information continues to become available, these new data should
influence management practices. The recovery plan recommends research
on threats to tortoises including diseases and other sources of
mortality, the long-term effects of road density and activities like
livestock grazing on desert tortoise populations, and the effectiveness
of protective measures in reducing human-caused desert tortoise
mortality; it also recommends that a comprehensive model of the life
history of the desert tortoise be developed, as such information is
helpful in understanding how various factors influence a species‘
survival. The scientists we consulted emphasized the importance of
research for assessing the effectiveness of recovery actions, not only
for determining whether delisting is appropriate, but also for
allocating scarce resources to those actions with the most positive
effects on desert tortoise populations.
Research is underway in several of the recommended areas, including
diseases and how they are transmitted, desert tortoise habitat and
health, nutrition, predation, the effects of climate variability on
tortoises, and survival of juvenile desert tortoises. Scientists from
many different organizations, including the U.S. Geological Survey, the
Service, the National Park Service, military installations, military
laboratories, states, universities, and private consulting groups,
perform this research. According to information compiled by researchers
at the Redlands Institute at the University of Redlands, research
presented since 1989 at the Desert Tortoise Council‘s annual symposia-
-where scientists, land managers, and others gather to share
information on desert tortoise issues--has covered more than 20 areas,
with disease, livestock grazing, roads, and off-highway vehicle use
emerging as the four most commonly presented topics (see
fig. 4).[Footnote 9]
Figure 4: Percentage of Threat Related Topics Presented at Desert
Tortoise Council Symposia, by Topic, 1989 through 2001:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
Note: The Other category represents 17 other areas, and includes
construction, toxicants, military activities, fire, mining, ravens/
predation, and drought. Each represents less than 5 percent of the
symposium presentations.
Despite the relatively extensive desert tortoise research efforts,
there is no overall coordination of the research to ensure that
questions about the effectiveness of protective actions are answered.
Such a coordinated program would direct research to address management
needs and ensure that managers are aware of current research as they
make decisions. More importantly, such a program would allow managers
to adapt land management decisions on the basis of science. Unless
research is focused on determining if restrictions and other protective
actions are effective, managers cannot demonstrate a scientific basis
for deciding whether restrictions should remain unchanged, be
strengthened, or if other actions would be more appropriate. For
example, since the Bureau of Land Management eliminated sheep grazing
on more than 800,000 acres in California, neither the Bureau nor the
Service has assessed whether this action has benefited desert tortoises
or their habitat. Despite ongoing research into how livestock grazing
affects the soils and plants upon which desert tortoises depend, few
data are available to show the extent of its impacts and the
effectiveness of restrictions in reducing adverse effects. One
scientist discussed recent research that could influence future
priorities for protective actions. Specifically, this research suggests
that tortoise fencing may be more effective along roads with
intermittent traffic than along highways, as the heavier highway
traffic may itself deter tortoises from attempting to cross. However,
we recognize that in some cases obtaining definitive data regarding
management actions may take many years for long-lived species like the
desert tortoise.
While no overall process exists for integrating research and management
decisions, several efforts are underway to aggregate scientific
information about tortoises and the desert ecosystem and identify
information gaps.
* The Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group was established in
1988 to coordinate agency planning and management activities affecting
the desert tortoise, and to implement the management actions called for
in BLM‘s Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan. The group consists of BLM‘s
state-office directors from Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah and a
Washington office representative; the four states‘ fish and game
directors; regional directors of the three Fish and Wildlife Service
offices with desert tortoise management responsibilities; it also
includes representatives of the National Park Service, the U. S.
Geological Survey, and the military installations with desert tortoise
habitat. The Management Oversight Group is intended to provide
leadership in implementation of the recovery plan, consider funding and
research priorities, help ensure data analysis procedures are
standardized, and review plans related to the desert tortoise. In 1990,
a Technical Advisory Committee was formed to provide technical
assistance to the group. The Desert Tortoise Research Project, a group
of U.S. Geological Survey biologists conducting research on the desert
tortoise, works with the Technical Advisory Committee to help establish
research priorities.
* The Mojave Desert Ecosystem Program, a cooperative effort among
several agencies that is led by the Department of Defense, has
aggregated large amounts of data on elevation, geology, climate, and
vegetation in the Mojave Desert ecosystem and has made them available
as a shared scientific database through the Internet. This shared
database is intended to allow land managers to make data-driven land
management decisions.
* The California Desert Managers Group, comprised of managers from
agencies of the Departments of Defense and Interior and the State of
California, is chartered to develop and integrate the databases and
scientific studies needed for effective resource management and
planning for the California desert. Currently, the group is compiling a
list of the major ongoing scientific activities in the Mojave Desert to
identify significant research gaps, opportunities to collaborate, and
opportunities to solicit support for scientific research needed to fill
those gaps.
* The Redlands Institute at the University of Redlands has begun a
project, funded by the Department of Defense, to compile, organize, and
store desert tortoise monitoring information and develop a database of
desert tortoise-specific research, which the Institute will make
available to land managers.
In addition, during our review, the Service official with lead
responsibility for the desert tortoise program made a proposal to the
Service‘s regional office to establish a science office and a permanent
science advisory committee that would work with managers to ensure that
future desert tortoise research is responsive to the managers‘ needs
for information. The proposed science office would coordinate research
and would work with the Mojave Desert Ecosystem Program, the University
of Redlands, and others to establish and centralize data and
procedures. The proposed science committee, which would be composed of
unbiased, recognized experts in disciplines relevant to tortoise
recovery, would work with the science office and land managers to set
priorities for desert tortoise recovery actions and review agencies‘
documents for their scientific soundness. The official anticipates that
the proposed committee would provide a scientific context to support
decisions that are, in some cases, difficult and controversial.
The Service Has Not Reassessed the Recovery Plan in Light of Recent
Research:
The recovery plan recognizes that few of the data available at the time
the plan was developed were useful for recovery planning; accordingly,
it recommends that the plan be reassessed every 3 to 5 years in light
of newer findings. Service guidance also recommends that recovery plans
be reviewed periodically to determine if updates or revisions are
needed. Recovery team members and the scientists we consulted agreed
that the Service should assess new research and determine if the
recovery plan needs to be revised or updated to accommodate new or
different findings.
However, although the plan was issued 8 years ago, the Service has not
yet reassessed it for several reasons. First, because the Service has
limited resources for meeting its continuing obligations to designate
critical habitat and develop recovery plans for other listed species,
resources are not readily available for recovery plan revisions. In
addition, some Service officials believe that new research has not
indicated that significant changes are needed in the tortoise recovery
plan. Finally, some Service officials believe that as new information
is developed, it can be and sometimes is incorporated into ongoing land
management decisions.
Given the controversy surrounding some of the recovery plan‘s
recommendations and the resulting management actions, periodic
reassessment of the plan in view of ongoing research could provide
evidence for either retaining or revising the existing recommendations.
For example, according to a recent review of scientific literature on
threats to desert tortoise populations, research has shown that heavy,
uncontrolled off-road vehicle use severely damages vegetation that
desert tortoises rely on for food and reduces population densities, a
finding that supports restrictions on such use.[Footnote 10] In
contrast, the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoises--effects
that the recovery team identified as a significant threat--are still
hotly debated, and research has not yet established that livestock
grazing has caused declines in desert tortoise populations. In
addition, reassessing the plan based on new research could also
indicate whether or not the critical habitat boundaries--which were
based on a draft of the recovery plan--should be revised.[Footnote 11]
Data Are Insufficient to Determine the Status of the Desert Tortoise
Rangewide, and Continued Funding for Monitoring Is Uncertain:
Data on trends in tortoise populations that would indicate whether or
not the species is recovering and can be delisted are not available
because population monitoring efforts have only recently begun and will
need to continue for at least 25 years (one generation of desert
tortoises). Although data on desert tortoise populations have been
collected from study plots in specific areas, these data cannot be
extrapolated across the desert tortoise‘s range. Obtaining the
necessary trend information has proved difficult because monitoring is
costly and resource intensive, and continued funding for population
monitoring efforts is uncertain.
Data Are Insufficient to Determine the Status of the Desert Tortoise
Rangewide:
According to the desert tortoise recovery plan, identifying trends in
desert tortoise populations is the only defensible way to evaluate
whether populations are recovering. Under the plan, before the desert
tortoise can be delisted, tortoise populations must become stable or
increase, as shown by at least 25 years of population monitoring. In
order to monitor population trends, it is necessary to have baseline
population data. While land managers have been concerned about the
desert tortoise for over 2 decades, such baseline data are not
available rangewide because most population monitoring has been done in
specific areas for other purposes and cannot be extrapolated to the
entire population. For example, information on the health and status of
desert tortoise populations in certain areas--primarily in California-
-has been collected from permanent study plots, some since the 1970s.
These study plots were established to provide data on attributes of
tortoise populations and their relationships to the condition of the
habitat and land-use patterns. However, the locations of these plots
were judgmentally selected and are therefore insufficient to allow
scientists to project their status to that of the entire desert
tortoise population.
Development of a baseline population estimate has been delayed in part
by difficulty in determining an acceptable methodology. The recovery
plan recommended a technique for estimating desert tortoise
populations, but that technique was discarded after federal land
managers agreed in 1998 to a different, more suitable population
monitoring technique that they believed would provide more reliable
data on the population rangewide. However, efforts to implement the
agreed-upon rangewide monitoring technique were hampered by a lack of
funding and the absence of a designated coordinator. In 2001, the Fish
and Wildlife Service began coordinating the collection of population
data throughout the desert tortoise‘s range using the agreed-upon
technique. Establishing a complete baseline population estimate is
expected to take 5 years. Service officials estimate that after the
baseline is established, additional monitoring will need to occur every
3 to 5 years to determine how populations are changing over time.
According to land managers and tortoise experts, counting tortoises is
difficult because populations are widespread and spend much of their
time underground. In addition, there are differences in peoples‘
abilities to locate individual desert tortoises, especially juveniles,
which can be as small as a silver dollar coin.
Continued Funding for Population Monitoring Is Uncertain:
A major concern for the tortoise recovery effort is continued funding
for rangewide population monitoring. A Service official estimates that
population monitoring will cost more than $1.5 million each year it is
conducted. The Service depends on agreements with several entities to
fund monitoring. For example, in 2002, funding for monitoring was
provided by the Department of Defense, National Park Service, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the University of Redlands, Clark County, Nevada,
and Washington County, Utah.
However, the agencies that have provided funding for monitoring in the
past have other priorities and legal mandates to which they must
respond; thus, they cannot guarantee that they will provide funding for
the population sampling from year to year. For example, a Bureau of
Land Management official in California made an informal commitment to
provide $200,000 for monitoring in fiscal year 2002, anticipating that
the Bureau would continue to receive funding for management in the
California Desert as it had in previous years. However, the funding did
not materialize, and the Bureau determined that because of budget
constraints it would be unable to fund the effort. Service staff are
frustrated by this situation, because they cannot know in advance
whether the funding required for sampling will be available, and thus
cannot effectively plan a population monitoring effort that must span
at least 25 years.
Expenditures for Desert Tortoise Recovery Exceed $100 Million, but the
Total Economic Impact Has Not Been Quantified:
Since the desert tortoise was first listed in 1980, more than
$100 million has been spent on its conservation and recovery, but the
total economic impact of the recovery effort is unknown. (Throughout
this section, monetary amounts are expressed in constant 2001 dollars.)
From fiscal years 1989 through 1998, agencies reported spending a total
of about $92 million on behalf of the desert tortoise, including about
$37 million for land acquisition. Comprehensive expenditure data do not
exist for fiscal years 1980 through 1988, because the reporting
requirement had not yet been enacted, or for 1999 through 2001, because
of delays issuing the report. However, staff time estimates by five key
agencies for these periods account for an additional $10.6 million in
expenditures on tortoise-related activities. Aside from such
expenditures, the overall economic impact--benefits as well as indirect
costs incurred by local governments, landowners, and developers as a
result of restrictions--associated with the tortoise recovery effort is
unknown, although some limited analyses have been done.
Expenditures on the Desert Tortoise Exceed $100 Million:
A 1988 amendment to the Endangered Species Act requires that the
Service submit to the Congress an annual report on or before January 15
that accounts for, on a species-by-species basis, all reasonably
identifiable federal and state expenditures during the preceding fiscal
year that were made primarily for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species.[Footnote 12] These expenditures cover a myriad of
activities related to the conservation and recovery of threatened and
endangered species, such as funding and conducting research,
maintaining species‘ habitats, surveying species‘ populations,
developing plans, and implementing conservation measures. Expenditures
for land acquisition are also reported, although they were not reported
as a separate category until fiscal year 1993.
The purpose of the reporting requirement, according to the Service, was
to obtain information with which to assess claims that a
disproportionate effort was being made to conserve a few, highly
visible species at the expense of numerous, less well-known species.
Through discussions with congressional staff and language contained in
the conference report for the 1988 amendment, the Service determined
that it and other federal and state agencies were expected to cooperate
and to make a ’good faith effort“ to collect and report expenditure
data that are ’reasonably identifiable“ to species. The reporting
provision, however, was not to become unduly burdensome. That is,
agencies were not expected to undertake extensive or extraordinary
measures, such as creating species-specific cost accounting systems, to
develop exceptionally precise data; nor were agencies expected to pro-
rate staff salaries and other normal operational and maintenance costs
not directed toward a particular species. According to the Service, a
significant portion of conservation activities benefiting threatened
and endangered species are not easily identified to individual species
such as law enforcement, consultation, and recovery coordination, and
are, therefore, not included in the annual report.
Based on its understanding of the reporting purpose, the Service issues
guidance to federal and state agencies each year on the types of
expenditures to report, which include research, habitat management,
recovery plan development or implementation, mitigation, status
surveys, and habitat acquisition, as well as the salary costs of
employees who work full-time on a single species or whose time devoted
to a particular species can be readily identified. The guidance states
that salary costs of staff that are not assigned to work on particular
species, expenditures on unlisted species or state-listed species
(unless they are also federally listed), and expenditures on formal
consultations dealing with multiple species should not be reported. The
Service also does not include agencies‘ unrealized revenues from unsold
water, timber, power, or other resources resulting from actions taken
to conserve threatened or endangered species.
Reported federal and state expenditures on behalf of the desert
tortoise totaled about $92 million, including about $37 million for
land acquisition, from fiscal years 1989 through 1998--the latest year
for which comprehensive data were available.[Footnote 13] Of all the
agencies reporting desert tortoise expenditures, the Bureau of Land
Management spent the most by far--about 5 times more than the Service
spent (see table 2).[Footnote 14]
Table 2: Federal and State Agencies‘ Expenditures on the Desert
Tortoise, Fiscal Years 1989 through 1998:
In constant 2001 dollars.
Bureau of Land Management; Expenditures: $48,598,000.
Fish and Wildlife Service; Expenditures: 9,785,000.
Air Force; Expenditures: 7,299,000.
Federal Highway Administration; Expenditures: 6,063,000.
Army; Expenditures: 4,460,000.
U.S. Geological Survey (formerly National Biological Survey);
Expenditures: 3,821,000.
Corps of Engineers; Expenditures: 3,655,000.
Marine Corps; Expenditures: 2,129,000.
States; Expenditures: 1,402,000.
Wildlife Services (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA);
Expenditures: 1,059,000.
National Park Service; Expenditures: 988,000.
Department of Defense (not broken out by service); Expenditures:
793,000.
Navy; Expenditures: 584,000.
Bureau of Mines; Expenditures: 582,000.
Smithsonian Institution; Expenditures: 301,000.
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Expenditures: 221,000.
Bureau of Reclamation; Expenditures: 157,000.
Environmental Protection Agency; Expenditures: 138,000.
Forest Service; Expenditures: 113,000.
Natural Resources Conservation Service; Expenditures: 45,000.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Expenditures: 8,000.
Federal Aviation Administration; Expenditures: 6,000.
Total; Expenditures: $92,000,000.
Note: The annual expenditure reports do not summarize information on an
agency-by-agency basis. Accordingly, we obtained and summarized the
expenditures that the individual agencies submitted to the Service.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency data.
[End of table]
Over the 10-year fiscal period from 1989 through 1998, federal and
state expenditures on the desert tortoise increased more than 40-fold,
from about $719,000 in fiscal year 1989 to nearly $31.7 million in
fiscal year 1998 (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Reported Expenditures on the Desert Tortoise, Fiscal Years
1989 through 1998 (in constant 2001 dollars):
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
The sharp increases in tortoise expenditures in fiscal years 1997 and
1998 are associated with significant expenditures for land acquisition.
In fiscal year 1997, nearly $8 million--or 56 percent of the
$14 million in expenditures on the tortoise that year--was for land
acquisition. Similarly, in fiscal year 1998, about $26.5 million--or
84 percent of the $31.7 million spent on the tortoise--was for land.
All of the land acquisition expenditures for the tortoise in 1998 were
made by the Bureau of Land Management, as was all but about $800,000 of
the 1997 land acquisition expenditures (the Service made the
remainder).
The $92 million that federal and state agencies reported spending on
the desert tortoise accounted for about 2.8 percent of the total
$3.3 billion they reported spending on all threatened and endangered
species from fiscal years 1989 through 1998.[Footnote 15] During this
period, 13 species, including the desert tortoise, each had total
expenditures of more than $50 million; these species accounted for
about 43 percent of total expenditures during this period (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Total Expenditures, Including Land Acquisition, for Species
with the Highest Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1989 through 1998 (in
constant 2001 dollars):
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
Comprehensive data on expenditures on endangered species have not been
available since fiscal year 1998 because the Service has not been
issuing its reports annually, as required. The latest report was
published on August 30, 1999, and was for expenditures in fiscal year
1997. Service officials also provided us a draft of the report on the
fiscal year 1998 expenditures, which we included in our analysis. Also,
although comprehensive expenditure data were not available since fiscal
year 1999, the Service shared with us the data it had received as
August 19, 2002. By that date, all but a few agencies had reported
their 1999 expenditures. Five agencies and the states, however, had not
reported their 2000 expenditures, and only two agencies had reported
their 2001 expenditures. For these 3 fiscal years, federal and state
agencies had reported a total of about $12.4 million in additional
desert tortoise expenditures. (This amount is not included in the
$92 million in reported tortoise expenditures.):
The Service official responsible for the report admitted that the
agency has not been complying with the annual reporting requirement for
several reasons. First, the Service has not always been timely in
requesting the needed information from federal and state agencies.
Second, several agencies have not submitted their information on time,
and the Service has chosen to wait to issue the report until all
agencies have done so. In some cases, agencies have been more than a
year late in providing information to the Service. And third, competing
priorities within the Service have delayed the report‘s preparation.
For example, the staff responsible for preparing the expenditures
report had concurrent responsibilities such as outreach, interagency
coordination, Endangered Species Act listings, and critical habitat
determinations. For future reports, the Service plans to develop a web-
based reporting system and use an intern to compile the data in order
to issue its report more timely.
Without timely issuance of the annual reports, decision makers and the
public have an incomplete picture of the expenditures made on
threatened and endangered species, both individually and in total.
These reports constitute the only readily available, consolidated
source of federal and state expenditures on a species-by-species basis.
Accordingly, they can serve as a valuable tool--for the Congress,
agency officials, and other interested parties--for assessing trends in
spending over time, whether for all species or for any one species of
interest. For example, the reports allow the Congress to assess whether
a few species are receiving a disproportionate amount of funding at the
expense of numerous other species. Additionally, the reports allow one
to discern spending patterns that could, in turn, indicate regions or
ecosystems that may be receiving more or less attention.
Because the Service‘s annual report does not account for many years
during which tortoise work was being done, we requested staff-time
estimates from five key agencies involved in desert tortoise
activities--the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Defense,
the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.
Geological Survey.[Footnote 16] These agencies estimated that they
spent the equivalent of 471 staff years, worth about $29.6 million (in
2001 dollars), on tortoise activities from fiscal years 1980 through
2001.[Footnote 17] Agencies developed their staff-time estimates based
on staff memory, judgment, and anecdotal evidence, supplemented by
personnel records reviews. These estimates cannot be combined with the
annual expenditures that are reported because some agencies include
staff time in their reports and others do not. We can, however, add to
the reported expenditures the value of the five agencies‘ staff-time
estimates for the 9-year period for which annual expenditure data have
not been compiled (fiscal years prior to 1989 and after 1998). The five
agencies‘ total staff-time estimate for these pre-and post-reporting
periods is valued at about $10.6 million (in addition to the $92
million in expenditures reported by federal and state agencies).
Of the five agencies estimating staff time devoted to tortoise-related
activities over the 22-year fiscal period from 1980 through 2001, the
Bureau of Land Management reported the greatest staff-time investment-
-about $16.2 million, more than the four other agencies combined. The
Service was a distant second, with a staff-time investment of about
$5.5 million--about a third that of the Bureau‘s. Overall, the
agencies‘ staff-time investment steadily increased from 1980 through
1989, and then rose sharply following the tortoise‘s rangewide listing
as a threatened species (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: Trend in Five Agencies‘ Staff-Time Investment in Tortoise
Work, Fiscal Years 1980 through 2001 (in constant 2001 dollars):
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
The Overall Economic Impact Associated with Tortoise Recovery Is
Unknown:
Aside from the reported expenditures and staff-time cost estimates, the
overall economic impact associated with the tortoise recovery effort is
unknown, although some limited analyses have been done. For example,
while it is known that restrictions on residential and commercial
development in tortoise habitat have resulted in foregone
opportunities, the extent and economic value of such lost opportunities
has not been quantified. City and county governments, individual
landowners, developers, and recreationists have incurred costs to
comply with the requirements to protect tortoises, but no consolidated
source of information exists to determine the full extent of such
costs, and some are difficult to quantify. These requirements include
training employees to correctly handle tortoises they encounter, facing
project or event delays or restrictions associated with tortoise
conservation, and preparing mitigation plans.
Although various publications have estimated some costs and discussed
benefits, none provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic impact
of restrictions on land use to protect the desert tortoise. The most
comprehensive analysis we reviewed was prepared by the Service in
conjunction with its 1994 designation of critical habitat for the
desert tortoise. This analysis evaluated the impact of potential
restrictions on federal land use in the seven counties that would be
affected by the designation of critical habitat for the
tortoise.[Footnote 18] The analysis concluded that the restrictions
stemming from the designation could significantly affect small rural
communities, but they would have little effect on the regional or
national economy. According to the economic analysis, the critical
habitat designation would primarily affect three activities: ranching,
mineral extraction, and recreation. For example, the analysis estimated
a loss of no more than 425 jobs in the seven affected counties, with
340 of those in the ranching industry. Ranching profits were expected
to be the hardest hit, with a reduction of about $4.5 million. About 51
permits--covering about 1.7 percent of all grazing units allowed on
federal land in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah--would be
affected.
It is important to note that the Service‘s analysis considered only the
effects of restrictions on federal land. The analysis recognized that
many restrictions had already been put in place on federal and
nonfederal land as a result of the tortoise‘s listing. For example, it
cited restrictions on grazing and off-road vehicle use in California
and Nevada and indicated that the critical habitat designation could
result in additional restrictions in those areas. For Utah, however,
the report stated that little or no additional restrictions would
likely be associated with the designation, as critical habitat had
previously been designated for the small portion of the population of
the tortoise in the state.
An analysis conducted by the Department of Agriculture‘s Economic
Research Service substantiated some of the results of the Service‘s
economic analysis for the critical habitat designation. This analysis
estimated the direct and total economic effects of different levels of
reductions in grazing rights in counties with known populations of
desert tortoises and in counties with designated habitat areas. The
estimated effects of grazing restrictions on federal land ranged from
$3 million to $9 million.[Footnote 19] This analysis also concluded
that grazing restrictions may have a significant impact on individual
ranchers, but their impact on regional economies was not as
significant. Under every scenario, the relative cost of total impacts
from restrictions was less than 0.08 percent of the gross domestic
product of the economic region. Lost livestock sales were the single
largest cost associated with grazing restrictions; however, grazing
restrictions were not likely to affect national livestock production or
prices. Other kinds of restrictions can similarly have an economic
cost. For example, restrictions on development, mining, and off-road
vehicle use can result in foregone revenue and recreation
opportunities. Such costs, however, have not been quantified.
An analysis prepared by Washington County, Utah, in 1995 examined the
costs and benefits associated with protective actions for the desert
tortoise. Specifically, the county analyzed the costs and benefits of
obtaining a permit from the Service that would allow the county to
approve development projects in desert tortoise habitat. Under this
permit, the county would establish a 61,000-acre reserve for desert
tortoises to mitigate potential harm to tortoises from the projects.
The analysis concluded that the benefits of establishing the reserve
would be more than the benefits associated with having individual
developers obtain permits and carry out their own mitigation actions.
Property tax revenue were estimated at about $48 million more with the
county obtaining the permit because if individual developers had to
obtain their own permits, they would not likely develop as much
land.[Footnote 20] Creating the reserve was expected to have little
effect on mining and no effect on farmland. The analysis did not
quantify the reserve‘s economic impact on livestock grazing, although
it noted that the county would extend purchase offers to holders of
grazing permits on reserve land. Finally, the analysis concluded that
the reserve would result in many benefits. These benefits include the
aesthetic value of the open space within the reserve, the increased
value of private property adjacent to the reserve (and the associated
increase in property taxes), and annual expenditures of about
$17.5 million a year by local and regional visitors to the reserve and
its associated education center.
Clark County, Nevada, also analyzed, in 2000, costs and benefits for a
permit that would allow development similar to that in Washington
County. However, Clark County‘s permit addresses potential impacts to
79 species including the desert tortoise, and the economic impact
associated with the tortoise cannot be identified separately. In
addition to the county‘s analysis, agencies that manage land in Clark
County have prepared their own economic analyses, as part of
environmental impact statements for their individual management plans.
For example, BLM identified negative fiscal impacts from restrictions
on cattle grazing in desert tortoise habitats in Clark County. As a
result, the county has obtained grazing and water rights from willing
sellers rather than restricting grazing outright. In contrast, the
Forest Service found positive socioeconomic impacts from tortoise
protections included in its management plan for the Spring Mountains
National Recreation Area.[Footnote 21] These positive impacts were
associated with increased recreation that could provide business
opportunities for the surrounding communities.
As the Washington County and Spring Mountains analyses indicate,
tortoise recovery efforts can lead to measurable economic benefits.
Other economic benefits clearly derive from efforts to protect the
desert tortoise, but generally have not been estimated. These benefits
are intangible and include such things as aesthetic values associated
with protected areas, the knowledge that the tortoise continues to
exist and may be available for future generations, and the corollary
benefits that other species enjoy as a result of protections extended
to the tortoise. Also, according to agency officials, the tortoise
recovery effort has resulted in improved communication and coordination
among federal, state, and local government officials, as well as
private groups such as environmental advocates and off-highway vehicle
clubs. Agency officials believe that education and communication
efforts ultimately achieve greater protections for not only the
tortoise but for the desert ecosystem as a whole.
Conclusions:
Many scientists consider the desert tortoise to be an indicator of the
health of the desert ecosystem, and to date, over $100 million has been
spent on efforts to protect and recover the species. Despite the
significant expenditures made and actions taken to conserve the
tortoise, land managers and the Service lack critical management tools
and measures needed to assess the status of the species and to
determine the effectiveness of protections and restrictions that have
been taken. Specifically, the lack of a strategy for integrating
research with management decisions prevents the Service and land
managers from ensuring that research is conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of protective actions taken and to identify additional
actions that could assist in the recovery effort. While several efforts
are underway to consolidate scientific information about the tortoise
and its habitat, and a recent proposal has been made for integrating
science with management, it is unclear how and to what extent these
efforts will be used to direct research and management actions, and the
efforts may be duplicative if not properly coordinated. In addition,
the original recovery plan for the tortoise has not been reviewed to
determine whether recommended actions are still valid or whether recent
scientific information would suggest more effective recovery actions.
Such a review is important given the continued uncertainties
surrounding some of the plan‘s original recommendations. Also, a lack
of funding assurances may hamper efforts to collect rangewide
population monitoring information needed to assess the current status
of the desert tortoise and to track the future growth or decline in the
species. Finally, late and incomplete expenditure reporting precludes
the Congress and the public from knowing the type and extent of
expenditures involved in the desert tortoise recovery effort. Unless
these shortcomings are addressed, questions will persist about whether
the current protection and recovery efforts and actions are working and
are necessary, and even whether the species continues to be threatened
with extinction.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that the most effective steps are taken to protect the
tortoise, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to take the following steps:
* Develop and implement a coordinated research strategy that would link
land management decisions with research results. To develop such a
strategy, the Director should evaluate current efforts to consolidate
scientific information and existing proposals for integrating
scientific information into land management decisions.
* Periodically reassess the desert tortoise recovery plan to determine
whether scientific information developed since its publication could
alter implementation actions or allay some of the uncertainties about
its recommendations.
* To ensure that needed long-term monitoring of the desert tortoise is
sustained, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior work with
the Secretary of Defense and other agencies and organizations involved
in tortoise recovery, to identify and assess options for securing
continued funding for rangewide population monitoring, such as
developing memorandums of understanding between organizations.
* To provide for more timely reporting of expenditures for endangered
species, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue the annual
expenditure reports as required by the law, and to advise the Congress
if reports are incomplete because not all agencies have provided the
information requested.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of the
Interior and Defense. The Department of the Interior concurred with our
findings and recommendations. The department also provided technical
clarifications from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, and U. S. Geological Survey, which
we incorporated as appropriate. The Fish and Wildlife Service also
provided details on actions planned or underway to implement our
recommendations. The Department of the Interior‘s comment letter is in
appendix III. The Department of Defense provided oral comments
consisting of technical clarifications, which we also incorporated as
appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Defense, and other
interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any
questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Barry T. Hill:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Actions on Behalf of the Mojave Desert Tortoise:
Federal agencies and others have taken a variety of actions to benefit
desert tortoises, reflecting recommendations in the recovery plan or
efforts to minimize the effects of potentially harmful activities.
These actions include acquiring habitat, restricting certain uses,
promoting education programs about the species, and funding or
conducting research on such topics as the causes of disease in
tortoises, their nutritional needs, and the effects of human activities
on tortoises. The Management Oversight Group‘s Technical Advisory
Committee surveyed agencies about the actions they have taken to date;
what follows is a list of some of the actions reported in that survey
and to us during our review.
Bureau of Land Management:
Arizona:
* In June 2002, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acquired 240 acres
of private property in Arizona, along with an associated 34,722-acre
livestock grazing allotment. While grazing has not been permanently
eliminated from this allotment, there is no current livestock use.
About 10 percent of the allotment lies within a desert wildlife
management area.
* BLM has closed some existing roads and posted these as closed, signed
others, and has built some tortoise fencing.
* Competitive events are banned in areas of critical environmental
concern.
* BLM amended the existing land use plan in 1997 chiefly to implement
the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. Following the amendment of the land
use plan, the BLM issued approximately 18 grazing decisions to modify
livestock grazing seasons in order to protect the desert tortoise.
* In 2002, BLM removed 61 burros from desert tortoise habitat and plans
to remove 10 more in 2003.
* Establishment of new roads is tightly restricted. No off-road vehicle
use is allowed, and law enforcement staffing has been increased to
enforce the restrictions.
* BLM has funded tortoise-monitoring studies for several years,
typically by contracting through Arizona‘s Game and Fish Department. In
addition, a study plot was established in 1980 to research the effects
of excluding cattle grazing. Other studies have been conducted over the
years, and the U.S. Geological Survey continues to study such issues as
fire and its relationship to invasive plants.
California:
* All routes are closed in the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, except to
owners of private land within the area‘s boundary.
* Almost 200 closed routes throughout several management areas have
been rehabilitated.
* Competitive vehicle events in tortoise habitat are allowed only
within existing off-highway vehicle open (play) areas or on
specifically identified courses.
* In 1991, sheep grazing was removed from more than 800,000 acres of
desert tortoise critical habitat in California, pursuant to a jeopardy
biological opinion from the Service. All or portions of several cattle-
grazing allotments totaling almost 350,000 acres have been restricted
or eliminated. Temporary restrictions are in place until bioregional
plans are completed; specifically, sheep allotments covering more than
135,000 acres in non-critical habitat cannot be grazed and cattle-
grazing is not authorized on all or part of allotments covering almost
250,000 acres, and is seasonally restricted in portions of 11
allotments covering almost 500,000 acres.
* From 1981 through 2002, more than 7,600 burros were removed from
several areas, some of which were within desert tortoise habitat.
* Since the mid-1990s, BLM has cleaned up several illegal dumps within
desert tortoise management areas, and community dumps are being closed
in favor of regional landfills.
* An 18-mile fence was constructed along one boundary of a management
area to restrict vehicle access from private lands into tortoise
critical habitat.
* BLM‘s information and visitor centers provide information on tortoise
conservation.
* Since 1989, between 55 and 60 ravens have been removed, most from a
proposed desert wildlife management area, as part of a pilot raven
control program.
* In 2001, all BLM lands in selected critical habitat units were
closed, on an interim basis, to all shooting except hunting and paper-
target practice.
Nevada:
* In 1998, the Las Vegas Field Office‘s Resource Management Plan
established four Areas of Critical Environmental Concern to protect
critical desert tortoise habitat encompassing a total of 743,209 acres.
* Approximately 54 miles of road have been restored:
* All competitive events involving mechanized and motorized vehicles
are limited to designated roads and trails within areas of critical
environmental concern.
* Rights-of-way and utility corridors are restricted, and new landfills
are prohibited.
* Two dump sites were cleaned up in one area of critical environmental
concern, and through off-site mitigation fees collected from sand and
gravel community pit sales, BLM has provided $12,000 and 40 people-
hours to clean up another large dump site.
* BLM, in cooperation with Clark County, has developed a brochure
depicting the locations of approved routes of travel and provides
information on use restrictions.
* BLM has issued a number of trespass violations and required
reimbursement for damaged vegetation for off road activities. Money
collected from these violations is used toward restoring these areas.
* Several areas have been restored: 8 trespass sites, 117 road sites,
15 gravel/corral sites, and 4 dumpsites.
* Through off-site mitigation fees collected from sand and gravel
community pit sales, BLM has provided more than $1 million in funding
for nutritional research on desert tortoises since 1995.
Utah:
* BLM has acquired almost 6,600 acres within the Red Cliffs Reserve.
* BLM has rehabilitated approximately 3.5 miles of closed road and has
closed more than 25 trails and many other roads to non-motorized
travelers.
* Red Cliffs Reserve is closed to fuel wood and mineral material sale
and withdrawn from mineral entry; BLM prohibits surface disturbance
during oil and gas exploration and limits access for rights-of-way.
Compensation is required where permanent loss of desert tortoise
habitat has occurred. Vegetation may not be harvested in the Reserve
except by permit for scientific purposes.
* The BLM retired grazing on 30,725 acres of land within the Red Cliffs
Reserve that had previously been under grazing permits.
* One illegal dump was cleaned up with 28 tons of material removed.
* Uncontrolled dogs are prohibited in the Reserve.
* Approximately 10 acres of disturbed habitat in the Reserve have been
reseeded or rehabilitated.
* BLM offers public lectures and brochures about the Red Cliffs Reserve
and management of desert tortoises in Washington County.
National Park Service:
Joshua Tree National Park:
* ’Tortoise breaks“ in curbs allow passage of desert tortoises and
other wildlife from one side of the road to another. These are also
used in parking lots to keep tortoises from being trapped.
* More than 400 miles of jeep trails, historic roads, and recent roads
are closed. Portions have been rehabilitated and re-vegetated.
* A Navy overflight exercise route that passed through portions of the
park was rerouted because it was thought to potentially harass or
affect the natural behavior of the desert tortoise and other sensitive
species.
* The park is working to prevent a proposed landfill from being placed
outside the park near one of its densest desert tortoise populations.
* Livestock use limited to horses and mules and is restricted to
designated equestrian trails and corridors.
* The park has cleaned up 23 dumpsites, removing a total of
547,704 pounds of garbage.
* Tortoises removed from the park are given to the tortoise rescue
center or tortoise adoption agency where they receive a physical
inspection and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit tags. Tortoises
showing symptoms of upper respiratory tract disease are given to a
researcher for a health inspection.
* Temporary tortoise fencing has been installed at construction staging
areas for ongoing road construction project. Areas with high tortoise
densities are fenced off and monitored by park biologists on-site
during construction.
* Approximately 45 acres of disturbance associated with federal highway
construction has been rehabilitated.
* Open mine shafts have been fenced and plugged to prevent tortoises
from falling in.
* The park has developed educational kits and a curriculum unit for
schools. Park biological technicians train volunteers, construction
workers, and park staff about desert tortoises.
* The Park has established five study plots; each is visited at least
10 times per season. More than 400 tortoises have been marked and their
age, sex, weight, and location have been recorded. Desert tortoise
sightings reported by park staff and visitors are collected through
wildlife observation cards; the information is analyzed, recorded, and
incorporated into a database.
* Research has been initiated on raven populations and upper
respiratory tract disease. Ravens are monitored and nests are removed
in areas where they have been seen predating on tortoises.
Mojave National Preserve:
* Mojave National Preserve actively manages all preserve lands
(1.6 million acres) for desert tortoises. Approximately 772,000 acres
are federally designated critical habitat for desert tortoise.
* Nearly 100,000 acres--most of which is desert tortoise critical
habitat--have been acquired within the preserve from private owners or
from the state of California since 1994.
* Permits for more than 768,000 acres once designated for grazing have
been retired. Permits for approximately 311,000 additional acres are
pending retirement. Once that retirement is complete, grazing--and more
than 4,000 cows--will have been removed from about 564,000 acres of
desert tortoise critical habitat.
* More than 3,000 burros have been non-lethally removed since 1997.
* The preserve has posted signs and information kiosks to increase
awareness of travelers of potential tortoise and other wildlife
encounters.
* Vehicles are permitted only on existing roads, and in camping and
parking areas. No off road driving is allowed anywhere in the preserve.
* Competitive motorized events are prohibited. Other organized events
may be allowed on existing roads, outside of the desert tortoise active
periods, with appropriate restrictions.
* No existing or new landfills are allowed anywhere in the preserve,
which is also closing and cleaning up old, informal trash dumps.
Approximately 50 acres of illegal dumps have been cleaned up in the
preserve.
* Any surface disturbance on preserve lands must be balanced with
appropriate restoration or acquisition of replacement lands for
mitigation.
* Permits for vegetation harvest are authorized only for scientific
collection; the National Park Service requires special stipulations to
ensure desert tortoises are protected.
* To prevent the spread of disease from captive tortoises, the preserve
prohibits the reintroduction of tortoises.
* Interpretive staff have developed school programs and created a
poster and a brochure about the desert tortoise and responsible
recreational behavior in tortoise habitat. The staff has placed warning
stickers in preserve vehicles reminding drivers to check under their
cars before driving.
* In 2001, population density monitoring began in the preserve.
* The preserve manages trash and litter to avoid subsidizing ravens.
Raven-proof trash containers are being installed throughout the
preserve.
Lake Mead National Recreation Area:
* Cattle grazing has been removed from desert tortoise habitat in Lake
Mead National Recreation Area.
* Hard-rock mining in 30,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat is
prohibited at Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
* Lake Mead National Recreation Area requires that vehicles stay on
designated roads.
* Lake Mead National Recreation area decided to abandon a proposal to
build a boat launch and marina because it would have required a road
through desert tortoise habitat.
Department of Defense:
Army National Training Center at Fort Irwin:
* Fort Irwin has piloted a ’head start“ program to attempt to conduct
research on the biology of neonate desert tortoises. Under this
program, females are removed from the wild and lay their eggs in
captivity, where the eggs can be protected. In the future, the young
could potentially be moved into areas where tortoise numbers have been
severely decreased or where they have been extirpated, if considered
appropriate.
* Fort Irwin has installed 7.5 miles of tortoise fencing.
* Fort Irwin has funded the population-monitoring program in two
proposed desert wildlife management areas since 2000. The National
Training Center has funded many research programs of behavior, disease
and other topics on the desert tortoise.
* Fort Irwin has predator control programs, which include removing and
excluding ravens, controlling coyotes, and educating the public to
limit or eliminate food and water sources for predators:
Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms:
* The Marine Corps supports an environmental education program; more
than 50,000 Marines and family members are given an environmental
briefing annually.
* The Marine Corps provides a portion of the funding required for
population monitoring efforts.
* Since the early 1980s, the Marine Corps has conducted or cooperated
with numerous desert tortoise studies and research projects. Research
projects were recently completed in juvenile survivorship and tortoise
ecology, and recently initiated projects include tortoise health
assessments and population monitoring.
* Marine Corps‘ Natural Resources staff work closely with the
installation‘s law enforcement to control free-roaming dogs.
* The Marine Corps surveyed 23 areas, comprising 935 square miles, to
assess the impacts of training on the desert tortoise and its habitat.
Edwards Air Force Base:
* Edwards closed 42 pitfalls (prospect pits, mine shafts, wells, and
irrigation pipes) in critical habitat that were potentially hazardous
to tortoises.
* Edwards prohibits competitive and organized events in critical
habitat.
* Edwards educates personnel on the deposition of captive and displaced
tortoises. A desert tortoise adoption program has been in place since
1994; it was established to prevent captive desert tortoises from being
returned to the wild, prevent wild tortoises from being taken, and
provide a means of tracking captive tortoises.
* Edwards built 22.7 miles of tortoise fencing in critical habitat to
keep tortoises from entering hazardous areas (precision bombing
targets) and from crossing well-traveled paved roads, and installed 48
miles of four-strand barbed-wire fence in critical habitat.
* Edwards revegetated 155.2 acres in critical habitat.
* Edwards presents an environmental education program on Mojave Desert
ecosystem to local schools on base and in surrounding towns and during
public events:
* Edwards funds or conducts population monitoring in critical habitat
and other areas on base. Other research includes vegetation and habitat
studies, evaluation of species diversity over time, analysis of soil
and vegetation samples for presence of toxic metals, and adaptive
management under the base‘s resource management plan.
State of California:
* The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has acquired and manages more
than 12,000 acres.
* DFG reviews proposed actions on public lands and makes
recommendations to BLM; it also reviews and makes recommendations on
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans for military bases.
* DFG prohibits and issues citations to people for collecting tortoises
from the wild.
* DFG has fenced some lands to keep vehicles out. Though DFG has not
installed fencing along roads, it has been a requirement for many
projects. Because of large numbers of tortoises on a particular road,
along with increased traffic associated with a solar energy plant,
fencing was required and was installed by the Desert Tortoise Preserve
Committee; a culvert will also be placed under the road.
* DFG provides funding for signs, brochures, and kiosk information.
* DFG provides funding for monitoring of long-term study plots. It is
co-hosting a workshop on diseases to consolidate known information,
foster discussion between experts, and solicit management
recommendations.
* California‘s Department of Transportation has purchased 618 acres
from San Bernardino County and will transfer them to DFG to mitigate
the effects of a highway expansion on desert tortoises; it also
installed about 6.5 miles of permanent tortoise fence on I-15.
State of Arizona:
* The Department of Game and Fish prohibits the release of wildlife,
including desert tortoises, without a special permit.
* The department monitors tortoises on several study plots (largely
funded by BLM) since 1996; it partially funded population monitoring in
one area in 2001 and 2002.
* The department conducts or funds research on tortoises in the Sonoran
Desert (in such areas as life history and disease), which may provide
comparative insight for Mojave Desert tortoise recovery efforts.
Washington County, Utah:
* The county‘s habitat conservation plan designated the 62,000-acre
(100 square-mile) Red Cliffs Desert Reserve.
* The county is working with BLM and the state of Utah to acquire
privately owned properties located within the boundaries of the
reserve; BLM and the state have acquired through purchase and exchange
more than 7,700 acres of privately owned land within the reserve since
1996.
* Of the estimated 40 dirt roads in the Reserve, 5 remain open for
public travel. Service roads are gated and locked. As resources allow,
closed roads are being rehabilitated. The county has reseeded an
estimated 5 acres of old roads within the reserve.
* The county compensated willing sellers for loss of grazing within the
reserve, for a total of 1,517 animal unit months at a cost of
$113,775.[Footnote 22]
* The county worked with St. George City, Utah, and BLM to clean up the
old city dump, which was located within high-density tortoise habitat
in the reserve. At least 30 illegal dumpsites have been cleaned up by
the county with the help of volunteer groups.
* Wild, displaced desert tortoises that test negative for upper
respiratory disease are moved, or translocated, to a designated area of
the reserve.
* The county has installed or funded the installation of 40 miles of
tortoise fencing. The reserve boundary is being fenced incrementally as
development occurs nearby.
* The county has posted boundary signs to inform people when they are
entering the reserve and advise of vehicle, pet, and target shooting
restrictions.
* The county has funded 5 years‘ population monitoring (conducted by
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources) at $115,000 per year.
* The county controls ravens that are identified as threats to
tortoises, and maintains a database of known raptor and raven nest
sites, which enables monitoring of predation on hatchling tortoises.
Clark County, Nevada:
* Under its multiple-species habitat conservation plan, through the
Nature Conservancy, the county has purchased grazing preferences from
ranchers (on a willing-seller basis) on more than 1,000,000†acres of
public land and eliminated grazing on those lands.
* The county has fenced almost 130 miles of highway, at a cost of about
$580,000, to keep desert tortoises from being run over.
* The county funds research in such areas as desert tortoise nutrition
and population monitoring, predation by ravens, translocation.
* The habitat conservation plan funds two BLM law enforcement rangers,
one National Park Service ranger, and one Nevada Division of Wildlife
ranger.
* Clark County provides funding for the operation and management of the
Clark County Desert Tortoise Conservation Center.
* The habitat conservation plan provides funding for a desert tortoise
pick-up service.
* The county educates the public about tortoises; for example, it has
hosted contests in which school children estimate when a desert
tortoise named Mojave Max will first exit his burrow. This event has
resulted in thousands of studentsí researching Mojave Desert
temperatures and desert tortoise habits.
* The county funds radio and newspaper announcements targeted to desert
users, reminding them to drive on roads, shoot responsibly, and deposit
garbage only at garbage dumps in order to keep raven populations down.
Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee:
* In 1995, the committee acquired 1,360 acres of private property,
which was the base property for a grazing allotment; since 1994, it has
acquired more than 175 acres within the Desert Tortoise Natural Area
and has acquired or is in the process of acquiring more than
1,200 acres to buffer the natural area and other critical habitat. It
generally sells or donates land it acquires to BLM or the State of
California.
* The committee has rehabilitated 2 miles of road and removed
approximately 3 tons of trash from a grazing allotment to date.
* A naturalist is staffed at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area every
spring; the naturalist provides interpretive and educational services
to visitors, routinely intercepts releases of tortoises and other
turtles, and provides contact information for safe deposition/
placement of captive tortoises. A resident host/interpreter at a
grazing allotment educates visitors to reduce release or take of
tortoises:
* Dogs are prohibited inside the Desert Tortoise Natural Area; the
naturalist monitors compliance during the peak visitation period.
* The committee installed 8 miles of tortoise fencing and commissioned
the design and installation of a tortoise culvert along a busy road.
* The committee has restored habitat at the site of an old toilet block
at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area; work is ongoing to camouflage
impacts of illegal off-road vehicle activity along entrance route into
the area.
* The committee hosts twice-yearly work parties to replace lost/stolen/
vandalized signs and fences at the area.
* The committee installed multimedia interactive kiosk at the
California Welcome Center in Barstow, California, to provide desert
environmental education to the general public.
* The committee is evaluating the protective effects of fencing.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report examines (1) the scientific basis for the 1990 listing,
critical habitat designation, and recovery plan recommendations for the
desert tortoise; (2) the effectiveness of actions taken by federal
agencies and others to conserve desert tortoises; (3) what is known
about trends in tortoise populations; and (4) costs and benefits
associated with tortoise recovery actions since 1980, when one
population of the tortoise was listed, to the extent that data were
available.
To evaluate the scientific basis for the listing decision, critical
habitat designation, and recovery plan (known collectively as ’key
decisions“), we contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to
identify and assist in the selection of scientists to provide technical
assistance. The persons we selected have recognized expertise in the
areas of conservation biology, herpetology, desert ecosystems, and
federal land management policy, and collectively represent a range of
perspectives and views on the conservation of threatened and endangered
species. The selection involved a two-step process. First, the academy
identified, and provided to GAO, an extensive candidate pool of
individuals for possible participation. We selected a smaller pool of
scientists from which the final selections were made, based on the
scientists‘ availability to participate. The academy‘s staff
administered a questionnaire to identify potential conflicts of
interest; no disqualifying conflicts of interest were identified. The
scientists participating in the discussion were:
Dr. Roy C. Averill-Murray
Amphibians and Reptiles Program Manager
Nongame Branch, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Phoenix, Arizona:
Dr. Perry R. Hagenstein
Institute for Forest Analysis, Planning, and Policy
Wayland, Massachusetts:
Dr. Jay D. Johnson
University Animal Hospital
Tempe, Arizona:
Dr. James A. MacMahon
Professor of Biology
Utah State University
Logan, Utah:
Dr. Dennis D. Murphy:
Research Professor, Department of Biology
University of Nevada:
Reno, Nevada:
Dr. Patrick Y. O‘Brien
Senior Research Scientist:
Chevron Texaco Energy Research and Technology Company
Richmond, California:
Dr. Frederic H. Wagner
Professor of Wildlife and Fisheries:
Utah State University
Logan, Utah:
GAO provided the scientists with the listing decision, the critical
habitat designation, the recovery plan, and key supporting documents.
GAO also provided access to other materials referenced in the key
decision documents. In a 2-day, facilitated discussion, the scientists
provided their views on five questions:
* Overall, do the listing decision and critical habitat designation
seem reasonable, given the scientific studies and other information
that were considered? Where do you agree and what concerns, if any, do
you have?
* Do the recommended numbers, sizes, and configurations of recovery
areas and desert wildlife management areas seem reasonable? What are
the strengths and weaknesses of the population viability analysis?
* Do the recovery plan‘s recommendations about activities that should
be prohibited within protected areas (e.g., grazing, mining, off-road
vehicle use) and mitigative actions that should be taken (e.g., fencing
or installing culverts underneath heavily traveled roads) seem
supported by the scientific studies? Where do you agree and what
concerns, if any, do you have?
* To what extent do the decision documents acknowledge and accommodate
uncertainties in the scientific studies? Do the accommodations seem
reasonable?
* Do any of the issues addressed in the recovery plan need to be
reassessed from time to time? If so, describe. How often do you think
such issues should be reassessed, and under what conditions?
To further our understanding of the process used to develop listing
decisions, critical habitat designations, and recovery plan
recommendations for the desert tortoise, we interviewed officials and
collected pertinent documentation from numerous federal agencies,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and
military installations of the Department of Defense; state and local
governments in California, Nevada, and Utah; nongovernmental
organizations, such as the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, the High
Desert Multiple Use Coalition, and the QuadState Coalition; academic
scientists; and six of the eight members of the desert tortoise
recovery team.
To assess the effectiveness of actions taken by federal agencies and
others to conserve the desert tortoise and to assess what is known
about trends in tortoise populations, we collected relevant land use
planning documents, habitat conservation plans, and other official
documents, published and unpublished scientific studies, desert
tortoise population monitoring reports, survey data collected and
compiled by the Management Oversight Groups‘ Technical Advisory
Committee regarding recovery actions, and other reports. We interviewed
officials from federal and state agencies and other organizations
involved with the tortoise, and conducted several site visits to
observe tortoise habitat and implementation of conservation actions.
Specifically, we made site visits to the Desert Tortoise Conservation
Center in Las Vegas, Nevada; the Desert Tortoise Natural Area in
California; Joshua Tree National Park; the Marine Corps Air Ground
Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California; the Army‘s National
Training Center at Fort Irwin, California; and the Red Cliffs Reserve
in Washington County, Utah. We also attended the annual symposium of
the Desert Tortoise Council in Palm Springs, California, which featured
presentations on actions taken to conserve the desert tortoise and
results of tortoise recovery efforts and research projects.
To identify costs and benefits associated with desert tortoise recovery
actions since the tortoise was first listed in 1980, we examined the
annual expenditure reports the Service is required to submit to the
Congress; these reports compile and summarize federal and state
agencies‘ annual expenditures on threatened and endangered species, by
species. The reports contain expenditure data for land acquisition and
for general activities (e.g., conducting research, monitoring species‘
populations, developing and implementing recovery plans, and
constructing fences). The reporting requirement began for expenditures
made in fiscal year 1989, and the last report the Service submitted to
the Congress was for expenditures made in fiscal year 1997. We obtained
all nine of these reports, as well as the draft report for fiscal year
1998 and the more recent expenditure data (for fiscal years 1999
through 2001) that the Service had compiled as of August 19, 2002, but
had not published.
Although the Service summarizes and reports data on a species-by-
species basis, it does not summarize and report data on an agency-by-
agency basis. Rather, the Service reports, in addition to its own
expenditures, one lump sum for expenditures by other federal agencies.
Accordingly, we reviewed and analyzed the agencies‘ individual
expenditure reports, which are reproduced in an appendix in each
report. We were thus able to compare and report information, year by
year and in total, on individual agencies‘ expenditures on the tortoise
and on other species.[Footnote 23] We excluded from the agencies‘ data
those expenditures that clearly did not meet the intent of the report,
such as expenditures that could not be broken out by species,
expenditures made on behalf of sensitive or candidate species (species
in need of protection but not listed as threatened or endangered), and
power purchases and revenue foregone as a result of actions taken to
protect listed species. Nevertheless, our sums did not always match
those in the reports because the Service also excluded from its sums
expenditures made on certain species, including species that were state
listed but not federally listed, species that were listed after the
fiscal year for which the expenditures were reported, and species that
were in need of protection but were not listed. Although a few of the
reports showed which expenditures the Service had excluded from its
sums, most did not. In such cases, the total expenditures shown in the
report for ’other federal agencies“ were less than the totals we
calculated. Further, because the Service sometimes included land
acquisition expenditures in its reported totals and sometimes excluded
them, we recalculated the totals to consistently include land
acquisition expenditures. We were thus able to consistently depict
trends in total expenditures, whether by species, by agency, or by
year.
We did not verify the accuracy of the expenditures reported by the
individual agencies or by the Service, but we checked the consistency
of the information we were given, to the extent possible. We reviewed
the guidance the Service provides to agencies on the types of
expenditure data to submit, and we discussed with Service officials the
criteria and methods by which the expenditure data are reviewed and
edited. Additionally, we discussed with several agency officials the
type of expenditure data they submit and the methods by which they
estimate their expenditures. We adjusted all the expenditures to
constant 2001 dollars.
Because tortoise-related expenditures were not collected prior to the
1989 annual report, and because comprehensive and current expenditure
data were not available for the years since 1998, we requested
estimates of staff time devoted to the tortoise from the five key
federal agencies involved in the tortoise‘s recovery: the Bureau of
Land Management, Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. We asked these
agencies to provide, for each employee who worked on tortoise-related
activities, the employee‘s name, grade level, area of expertise,
and percent of time devoted to tortoise-related activities during each
fiscal year from 1980 through 2001. Through discussions with various
agency officials, we determined that the request was reasonable and
that the agencies would be able to provide us with fairly reliable
staff-time estimates by consulting various staff members, personnel
records, and historical data. Based on these discussions, we provided
each of the five agencies with instructions, guidance, and examples of
the information sought. We received staff-time estimates from all but
two of the pertinent agency offices (e.g., those offices likely to have
extensive experience and involvement in desert tortoise issues). We did
not receive estimates from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, or the
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, California.
To analyze the estimates, we used the Office of Personnel Management‘s
historical salary tables to calculate the salary for each grade level
in each year. In accordance with guidance contained in Circular A-
76,[Footnote 24] issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
we used step 5 of each grade level to calculate salaries, except when
the agency‘s data included the step. For staff that were members of the
military, we asked the installation to convert the military pay grade
to the equivalent general schedule grade. Finally, based on A-76
guidance and our discussions with officials of OMB and MEVATEC
Corporation (a contractor that advises and assists the Department of
Defense with A-76 cost comparisons), we determined, for each year, the
salary percentage that represented the value of the federal benefits
package (i.e., health insurance, life insurance, pension plans, and
workman‘s compensation). We adjusted the staff-time values to constant
2001 dollars.
We obtained staff-time estimates from the following federal agencies
and offices.
* Bureau of Land Management--California Desert District (District
Office and five field offices: Ridgecrest, Palm Springs, El Centro,
Barstow, and Needles); Las Vegas Field Office; St. George Field Office;
Utah State Office; and Cedar City District Office.
* Department of Defense--National Training Center, Fort Irwin; Marine
Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms; Edwards Air Force
Base; and Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake.
* U.S. Geological Survey--Mid Continent Ecological Science Center, Fort
Collins; Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center; Western Ecological
Research Center Field Stations in Las Vegas, Nevada; Riverside,
California; and St. George, Utah (this field station no longer exists).
* Fish and Wildlife Service--Laguna Niguel/Carlsbad Field Office,
Ventura Field Office, Barstow Field Office, Salt Lake City Office,
Phoenix Office, Reno Office, Las Vegas Office, and Portland Regional
Office.
* National Park Service--Joshua Tree National Park, Mojave National
Preserve, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and Zion National Park.
To obtain a perspective on potential economic effects associated with
the tortoise recovery effort, we reviewed the economic analyses
contained in various documents, such as the critical habitat
designation for the tortoise, environmental impact statements prepared
by federal agencies, and habitat conservation plans. To gauge the
potential economic effects of grazing restrictions in tortoise habitat,
we requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s Economic
Research Service (ERS) calculate county-level economic effects, using a
recently published analytical method.[Footnote 25] The authors had
developed this method to estimate both the direct and indirect effects
of grazing restrictions. Estimates of the direct (ranch-level) effects
were based on the value of county cattle and sheep sales that would be
lost if grazing restrictions were imposed. Estimates of the indirect
(and induced) effects of grazing restrictions were then derived from an
input-output model, using the estimates of the direct effects. The
indirect effects include the effects in all industries that supply
inputs to cattle and sheep producers; the induced effects include
changes in farm purchases due to changes in farm income.
At our request, the Economic Research Service estimated hypothetical
10-and 20-percent reductions in grazing owing to restrictions imposed
to protect the desert tortoise. Such levels of reduction were deemed
reasonable by the ERS researchers, given that not all land in the
counties evaluated was federally owned or within critical habitat for
the tortoise. (These hypothetical reduction levels are similar to those
used in the authors‘ original analysis.) The counties included in the
study were those with known populations of desert tortoises and those
with critical habitat for the species. Other counties were also
included as part of a regional economic analysis. The study included
Mohave County in Arizona; Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Inyo Counties in California; Clark, Esmeralda, Nye, and Lincoln
Counties in Nevada; and Washington County in Utah. It relied on data on
grazing activity from the National Agricultural Statistical Service‘s
Census of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture‘s Forest Service,
and the Bureau of Land Management. General economic data and regional
economic data were supplied through IMPLAN--the input-output modeling
framework, software, and database developed by the authors and
discussed in the referenced article.
We performed our work from November 2001 through September 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240:
DEC 2 2002:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team 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: Research Strategy and Long-Term
Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program,“
(GAO-03-23) dated October 30, 2002. In general, we agree with the
findings and the recommendations in the report.
In general, the report appears to be accurate and represents a
substantial effort on the part of GAO staff involved in the review. The
report provides a summary of two decades of information on the desert
tortoise and associated actions undertaken by Federal and State
agencies and non-governmental organizations to recover the desert
tortoise. The findings of the report related to the listing of the
species, the designation of Critical Habitat, and the development of
the 1994 Recovery Plan support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‘s
conclusion that these actions were based on the best available
scientific and commercial information at the time.
The enclosure provides specific comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and
U.S. Geological Survey. We hope our comments will assist you in
preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
P. Lynn Scarlett Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget:
Signed by P. Lynn Scarlett:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Trish McClure (202) 512-6318:
Acknowledgments:
In addition, Carol Bray, Jennifer Duncan, Kathleen Gilhooly, Tim
Guinane, Jaelith Hall-Rivera, Cynthia Norris, Judy Pagano, and Pamela
Tumler made key contributions to this report.
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
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
:
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 (www.gao.gov) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
:
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: 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:
Of the three areas spanning more than one state, one is in Arizona and
Nevada, one is in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, and one is in California
and Nevada.
FOOTNOTES
[1] All desert tortoises discussed in this report belong to the Mojave
population. Other desert tortoises found in the United States belong to
the Sonoran population.
[2] 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Species are designated as endangered or
threatened, depending on their risk of extinction: an endangered
species is at risk of extinction in all or a significant portion of its
range, and a threatened species is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
[3] A recovery plan is required unless the Secretary finds that such a
plan will not promote the conservation of the species.
[4] The act‘s protections against take extend to any area where the
species occurs, not just in its critical habitat.
[5] However, according to a National Park Service official, 3,720 acres
of critical habitat were originally included in the boundary of Joshua
Tree National Park, possibly due to a mapping error.
[6] 59 Fed. Reg. 126, p. 34272 (Jul. 1, 1994).
[7] These restrictions are required by a settlement agreement with
environmental groups that sued BLM because it did not consult with the
Fish and Wildlife Service about the effects of its land use plans for
the California Desert on endangered species. The restrictions will
remain in place until BLM receives a biological opinion from the
Service on the effects of its California Desert Conservation Area Plan,
and then finalizes and implements amendments to the plan.
[8] Heaton, J.S., A. Martek, R. Inman, and J. Lesch. 2002. Trends in
desert tortoise research: DTC Proceedings 1976-2001. Proceedings of the
2002 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Palm Springs,
California.
[9] Boarman, William I., Threats to Desert Tortoise Populations: A
Critical Review of the Literature. U. S. Geological Survey, Western
Ecological Research Center. Aug. 9, 2002.
[10] Critical habitat boundaries may be revised at any time if new
information indicates that changes are warranted.
[11] This annual reporting requirement took effect for expenditures
made in fiscal year 1989; there is no similar reporting requirement for
prior years.
[12] As of October 1, 2002, the Service had not issued the fiscal year
1998 expenditure report, but had provided us with a complete draft.
[13] In most of the 10 years, 11 to 15 federal agencies reported
tortoise expenditures; state expenditures were reported as one lump
sum.
[14] The total $3.3 billion in expenditures reported for the fiscal
period 1989 through 1998 does not include about $907 million of
expenditures reported by federal agencies and states. Among the
expenditures the Service excluded from its reports were (1) more than
$240 million in expenditures that, although made to protect listed
species, could not be accounted for on a species-by-species basis; (2)
more than $105 million in expenditures that were for species that were
not federally listed (e.g., state-listed species), species that were
not listed until after the end of the fiscal year during which the
expenditures were made, or species considered in need of protection but
not federally listed (e.g., sensitive or candidate species); and (3)
about $561 million in net power purchases or power revenues foregone as
a result of activities taken to protect threatened and
endangered species.
[15] Specifically, we received staff time estimates from these
agencies‘ offices located in or near the Mojave desert--Arizona,
California, Nevada, and Utah. We did not receive estimates from Nellis
Air Force Base, in Nevada, or the Marine Corps‘ Chocolate Mountain
Aerial Gunnery Range, in California.
[16] To calculate the value of the estimated staff-time investment, we
identified the historical salary level for each employee for each year,
added the value of federal benefits that year, multiplied the result by
the percent of time reported as having been spent on tortoise-related
activities, and adjusted the value to constant 2001 dollars.
[17] These seven counties are: Mohave County, Arizona; Imperial,
Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, California; Clark and Lincoln
Counties, Nevada; and Washington County, Utah.
[18] Monetary values in this analysis were expressed in constant 1993
dollars.
[19] Monetary values in this analysis were expressed in constant 1996
dollars.
[20] The Forest Service found these positive socioeconomic impacts in a
1996 environmental impact statement.
[21] An animal unit month is defined as the amount of forage needed to
sustain one cow, one horse, or five sheep for 1 month.
[22] We could not similarly analyze individual states‘ expenditures,
because such information was neither included in the reports nor sought
by the Service.
[23] Circular A-76 provides guidance on calculating the cost of federal
personnel. The circular provides the policies and procedures agencies
are to use in comparing the costs of conducting a function in-house and
contracting it out.
[24] Lewandrowski, Jan and Kevin Ingram, ’Restricting Grazing on
Federal Lands in the West to Protect Threatened and Endangered Species:
Ranch and Livestock Sector Impacts,“ Review of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 24, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2002, pp. 78-107.
[25]
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
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
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 ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
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: 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:
