Endangered Species
Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions Gao ID: GAO-05-211 April 6, 2005Currently there are more than 1,260 species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While few species have gone extinct since 1973, only 9 have been "recovered" or removed from the list because they no longer need the act's protection. This has raised questions about how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) allocates its recovery funds. Proponents of the act believe that the Service's recovery funds are only a small fraction of what is needed to make greater recovery progress. The act and agency guidelines require the Service to prioritize species to guide recovery fund allocation. In fiscal year 2000 through 2003, the Service spent $127 million dollars in recovery funds attributable to individual species. In this report, GAO analyzed (1) the extent to which the Service's allocation of recovery funds compares with its recovery priority guidelines and (2) what factors influence the Service's recovery allocation decisions.
The Service spent its recovery funds in a manner generally consistent with species priority in fiscal years 2000 through 2003, spending almost half (44 percent) of the $127 million on the highest priority species (see figure below). Species in the next two highest priority groups received almost all of the remaining recovery funds (51 percent). Species in the three lowest priority groups received very little funding (6 percent). Most listed species (92 percent) are in the top three priority groups. When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base their decisions to a significant extent on factors other than a species' priority ranking. At the headquarters level, a formula that focuses on each region's workload determines how recovery funds are allocated to regional offices. Each regional office allocates its recovery funds to their field offices differently, but in no case is priority ranking the driving factor. Instead, regional officials focus primarily on opportunities for partnerships, though they told us that they also focus on species facing the gravest threats. Field office staff we spoke with emphasized the importance of pursuing funding partnerships in order to maximize their scarce recovery funds. The Service does not know the effect of these disparate allocation systems because it does not have a process to routinely measure the extent to which it is spending its recovery funds on higher priority species. While we found that for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 the Service spent a majority of its recovery funds on high priority species, without periodically assessing its funding decisions, the Service cannot ensure that it spends its recovery funds on the species that are of the greatest priority and, in cases where it does not, determine whether its funding decisions are appropriate.
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-05-211, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-211
entitled 'Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally
Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to
Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions' which was released on April
6, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives:
April 2005:
Endangered Species:
Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-
Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding
Decisions:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-211]
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-211, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Currently there are more than 1,260 species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While few species
have gone extinct since 1973, only 9 have been ’recovered“ or removed
from the list because they no longer need the act‘s protection. This
has raised questions about how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) allocates its recovery funds. Proponents of the act believe
that the Service‘s recovery funds are only a small fraction of what is
needed to make greater recovery progress.
The act and agency guidelines require the Service to prioritize species
to guide recovery fund allocation. In fiscal year 2000 through 2003,
the Service spent $127 million dollars in recovery funds attributable
to individual species. In this report, GAO analyzed (1) the extent to
which the Service‘s allocation of recovery funds compares with its
recovery priority guidelines and (2) what factors influence the
Service‘s recovery allocation decisions.
What GAO Found:
The Service spent its recovery funds in a manner generally consistent
with species priority in fiscal years 2000 through 2003, spending
almost half (44 percent) of the $127 million on the highest priority
species (see figure below). Species in the next two highest priority
groups received almost all of the remaining recovery funds (51
percent). Species in the three lowest priority groups received very
little funding (6 percent). Most listed species (92 percent) are in the
top three priority groups.
When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base their
decisions to a significant extent on factors other than a species‘
priority ranking. At the headquarters level, a formula that focuses on
each region‘s workload determines how recovery funds are allocated to
regional offices. Each regional office allocates its recovery funds to
their field offices differently, but in no case is priority ranking the
driving factor. Instead, regional officials focus primarily on
opportunities for partnerships, though they told us that they also
focus on species facing the gravest threats. Field office staff we
spoke with emphasized the importance of pursuing funding partnerships
in order to maximize their scarce recovery funds. The Service does not
know the effect of these disparate allocation systems because it does
not have a process to routinely measure the extent to which it is
spending its recovery funds on higher priority species. While we found
that for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 the Service spent a majority of
its recovery funds on high priority species, without periodically
assessing its funding decisions, the Service cannot ensure that it
spends its recovery funds on the species that are of the greatest
priority and, in cases where it does not, determine whether its funding
decisions are appropriate.
Figure: Recovery Funds Spent on Species by Priority, Fiscal Years 2000-
2003:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To help ensure that the Service is making the best use of available
recovery resources, GAO is recommending that the Service periodically
assess the extent to which higher priority species receive recovery
funds and report this information publicly. The Department of the
Interior agreed with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-211].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Service Spends a Significant Portion of Recovery Funds on the
Highest Priority Species:
The Service Considers Factors Besides Species Priority When Allocating
Recovery Funds but Does Not Assess the Results of Its Funding Decisions:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species
Activities and Fish and Wildlife Recovery Expenditures by Year for
Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
Table 2: Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Priority Ranking Schedule:
Table 3: Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species
Activities Compared to Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery
Expenditures During Fiscal Year 2003--for Top 20 Species:
Table 4: Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Expenditures Compared to
Total Reported Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities During
Fiscal Year 2003--for Top 20 Species:
Table 5: GAO Groupings of Priority Numbers:
Table 6: Number of Species in Each Priority Group, by Year:
Figures:
Figure 1: Recovery Expenditures by Priority, Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
Figure 2: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget:
Figure 3: Location of Fish and Wildlife Service's Seven Regions:
Figure 4: Recovery Expenditures by Priority Ranking, Fiscal Years 2000-
2003:
Figure 5: Distribution of Species by Priority Ranking as of September
2003:
Figure 6: Weighted Average Per Species Expenditure, by Priority
Ranking, Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
Figure 7: Distribution of Endangered and Threatened Species by Priority
Ranking as of September 2003:
Figure 8: Weighted Average Per Species Expenditures, by Taxonomic
Classification, Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
Figure 9: The California Red-Legged Frog Is Important to a California
Community Due to Its Prominence in a Famous Mark Twain Story:
[End of Section]
Letter April 6, 2005:
The Honorable Richard W. Pombo:
Chairman, Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects more than 1,260 species
facing extinction or likely to face extinction (referred to as
endangered and threatened species, respectively). The purpose of the
act is to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. Critics of the act are concerned that this goal
is not being met because only 9 species have been "recovered"--brought
to the point where they no longer need the act's protection--since the
act's inception in 1973.[Footnote 1] However, proponents of the act
counter that because of the act's protections only 9 species have gone
extinct. Proponents also point out that funding available to recover
species is only a small fraction of what federal scientists believe is
needed, making greater recovery progress a practical impossibility.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responsible for
implementing the act for freshwater and land species.[Footnote 2] To
recover species, the Service develops recovery plans, which include
site-specific recovery tasks such as identifying the size of a
population or restoring habitat. Recovery plans can take years or
decades to fully implement, depending on the needs of the species
covered by the plan. In 1979, Congress amended the act, in part, to
require the Service to establish guidelines for prioritizing the
development and implementation of recovery plans. The Service
established guidelines that, among other things, prioritize species
based on factors such as the degree of threat the species faces and its
potential to be recovered.[Footnote 3] Under these guidelines,
therefore, species facing a high degree of threat and having a high
potential for recovery are to be afforded the highest priority. Species
in this category include the northern spotted owl, the grizzly bear,
and the American crocodile as well as lesser-known high-priority
species such as Fender's blue butterfly, Texas wild rice, and the
Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (a sea bird). The recovery guidelines
emphasize that they should be used only as a guide, not as an
inflexible framework for determining funding allocations.
During fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the Service allocated $245
million--between $56 million and $65 million per year--to develop and
implement plans under its recovery program.[Footnote 4] Biologists
inside the Service and elsewhere believe these funds are a small
fraction of what is needed in the face of the daunting recovery
challenge. As a result, the Service increasingly relies on partnerships
with other federal agencies, the states, and private organizations to
help implement recovery plans and has cultivated relationships with
many of them by jointly funding projects. For example, the Service's
Hawaii field office is jointly funding a project with other federal
agencies, local governments, and The Nature Conservancy to revitalize
watersheds to help recover the endangered Hawaiian duck, among other
species. Although the Service is required to report annually on all
federal and some state expenditures on listed species,[Footnote 5] it
does not separately report on how it spent its recovery funds by
species.[Footnote 6]
You asked us to assess how the Service allocates its recovery funds
among endangered and threatened species. In this report, we (1) analyze
how the Service's allocation of recovery funds compares with its
recovery priority guidelines and (2) determine what factors influence
the Service's recovery funding allocation decisions. Since most of the
Service's recovery funding was spent on salaries that are not allocated
on a per species basis, we asked each of the Service's regional offices
to identify, to the extent possible, the spending on individual species
for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. Collectively, the regions were able
to attribute to individual species $127 million (52 percent) of the
$245 million the Service allocated to the recovery program. We also
obtained the individual species' priority ranking based on the recovery
priority guidelines for those years. We then compared the recovery
expenditures for individual species with those species' priority
rankings for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. In addition, we
interviewed Service recovery officials in headquarters, all seven
regional offices, and several field offices throughout the country.
(See App. I for a more detailed description of the scope and
methodology of our review). We did not make a judgment about the
adequacy or accuracy of the Service's recovery priority system. In this
report we analyzed only Fish and Wildlife Service's recovery
expenditures, not expenditures on other endangered and threatened
species activities (which are reported, in combination with recovery
expenditures, in Fish and Wildlife Service's annual expenditure report
to Congress) or expenditures from other entities. We performed our work
between February 2004 and January 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The Fish and Wildlife Service has spent its recovery funds in a manner
generally consistent with its recovery priority guidelines. For fiscal
years 2000 through 2003, the Service spent nearly half (44 percent) of
the recovery funds attributable to individual species on species with
both a high degree of threat and a high potential for recovery (see
fig. 1). These species constitute one-third of all endangered and
threatened species, and they received, on average, more funding than
species that were lower priority. Of the remaining recovery funds,
almost all (51 percent) was spent on species in the next two highest
priority groups--species with a high threat assessment but a low
potential for recovery, and species with a moderate threat assessment
but a high potential for recovery. Very little (6 percent) was spent on
species in the remaining three lowest priority groups and most of this
is attributable to spending on two species: the Bald Eagle (which is
nearing delisting) and the Canada Lynx (which was embroiled in
controversy).
Figure 1: Recovery Expenditures by Priority, Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO Analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service Data
Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of figure]
When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base their
decisions to a significant extent on factors other than those contained
in the recovery priority guidelines, including workload and
partnerships with other organizations. Headquarters allocates most of
its recovery budget among the Service's seven regional offices using a
formula to estimate each region's workload based on the number of
species that the region is responsible for and a relative estimate of
the cost to recover each species. This formula does not necessarily
reflect the threats facing a species or its recoverability. Service
officials told us that they use this formula because it provides
relatively stable funding to each region--an important consideration
because most of a region's recovery budget supports staff salaries for
recovery biologists. These biologists work on a variety of recovery
activities including helping to develop recovery plans, coordinating
recovery tasks and developing recovery partnerships. After headquarters
allocates funds to the regional offices, the regional offices then
allocate funds to the field offices, relying extensively on factors
such as long-standing arrangements to work with partners to recover
specific species and other opportunities to have partners bring funding
and resources to the recovery program. Officials throughout the Service
told us that, in allocating funding, it is crucial to have flexibility
to stray from the recovery priority guidelines to maximize recovery
resources contributed through partnerships. However, the Service does
not have a process to routinely measure the extent to which it is
spending its recovery funds on high-priority species. As a result, the
Service cannot be certain that it will continue to spend its recovery
funds on the highest priority species as it attempts to maximize its
partners' contributions. In addition, because the Service does not
separately report on how it spent its recovery funds by species, it
cannot show Congress or the public the extent to which it is focusing
its resources on the highest priority species, or explain, in cases
where it is not, that its resource decisions are still appropriate. To
make its allocation process more systematic and transparent, we
recommend that the Service periodically assess the extent to which it
is following its recovery priority guidelines, identify how factors
other than those in the guidelines are affecting its funding allocation
decisions, and report this information publicly.
We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report
for review and comment. In general, the Department agreed with our
findings and recommendations. The Department's letter and our response
to it is presented in appendix II.
Background:
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is to conserve
endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. The act defines "conservation" as the recovery of endangered
and threatened species so that they no longer need the protective
measures afforded by the Act. The act defines as endangered any species
facing extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
and defines as threatened any species likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior
to publish a list of species it determines are endangered or threatened
in the Federal Register and specify any critical habitat of the species
with in its range--habitat essential to a species' conservation. Loss
of habitat is often the principal cause of species decline.
Additionally, the act establishes a process for federal agencies to
consult with the Service about their activities that may affect listed
species. Federal agencies must ensure that their activities, or any
activities they fund, permit or license, do not jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of its critical habitat.
There were 1,264 species in the United States listed as endangered or
threatened as of September 30, 2004.[Footnote 7] The Service has
responsibility for 1252 of these species. Thirty-two species have been
removed from the list: 9 species as a result of recovery efforts, 9
because they have been declared extinct, and 14 species for other
reasons, mostly because new information showed that listing was no
longer warranted.[Footnote 8]
The Service develops and implements recovery plans, among other things,
to reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its long-term
survival. A recovery plan may include a variety of methods and
procedures to recover listed species, such as protective measures to
prevent extinction or further decline, habitat acquisition and
restoration, and other on-the-ground activities for managing and
monitoring endangered and threatened species. According to Service
officials, it is their policy to issue a recovery plan within two and a
half years of the species' date of listing. The Service exempts species
from the plan requirement when it is determined a plan will not promote
their conservation.[Footnote 9] For example, the ivory-billed
woodpecker is exempt because the Service thinks it is extirpated from
the wild throughout its range.
Recovery plans aim to identify the problems threatening the species and
the actions needed to resolve them. The act directs the Service, to the
maximum extent practicable, to incorporate into each recovery plan (1)
a description of site-specific recovery tasks necessary to achieve the
plan's goal for the conservation and survival of the species; (2)
objective measurable criteria that will result in a determination that
the species can be removed from the list of endangered and threatened
species (delisted); and (3) an implementation schedule that estimates
the time and cost required to carry out the recovery tasks described in
the recovery plan. Service employees, independent scientists, species
experts, or a mix of these people can develop recovery plans. According
to Service officials, as of September 2004, the Fish and Wildlife
Service had 551 approved recovery plans covering more than 1025 species
(more than 80 percent of all listed species).
The act also requires the Service to report biennially to certain
Congressional committees on efforts to develop and implement recovery
plans, and on the status of listed species for which plans have been
developed. The Service implements this requirement through its biennial
Recovery Report to Congress.[Footnote 10] Additionally, the act
requires the Service to submit an annual report to the Congress on
federal expenditures for the conservation of endangered or threatened
species, as well as expenditures by states receiving federal financial
assistance for such conservation activities.[Footnote 11] As part of
its efforts to compile data for this report, the Service collects data
on recovery fund expenditures on a species-specific basis, although
these data have not been reported separately in published expenditure
reports.
With regard to Service funds, the Endangered Species program is a small
portion of the Service's overall budget ($132 million of $1.9 billion
in fiscal year 2003). Of this amount, about one-half is devoted to the
recovery program, $65 million (see fig. 2). This is similar to previous
fiscal years.[Footnote 12] The funds spent on the recovery program,
however, are only a portion of the total money spent to recover
species. Some of the Service's other programs, including refuges,
contribute funds and staff to species recovery. In addition, according
to the Service, other federal and non-federal entities contribute
substantial funds to species recovery.
Figure 2: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service
has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to
propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
Act, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by
other higher priority listing activities. The Candidate Conservation
Program provides a means for conserving these species.
[End of figure]
In addition to the Service's Endangered Species Program expenditures to
recover species, other programs in the Service as well as other federal
and state agencies spend substantial funds on endangered species
activities, including land acquisition (see table 1).
Table 1: Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species
Activities and Fish and Wildlife Recovery Expenditures by Year for
Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
In thousands of dollars.
Total reported Federal and State Expenditures for All Endangered
Species Activities (including land acquisition);
FY 2000: 610,286;
FY 2001: 2,442,356;
FY 2002: 1,191,752;
FY 2003: 1,201,166.
Service Recovery Expenditures;
FY 2000: 37,905;
FY 2001: 27,814;
FY 2002: 39,021;
FY 2003: 48,418.
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.
Note: The source of data for the row "Total Reported Federal and State
Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities (including land
acquisition)" is the Service's fiscal year 2003 expenditure report
(Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures,
Fiscal Year 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). In this report, the
Service identifies a number of differences in reporting methods that
make it difficult to compare expenditure data from different years. For
example, prior to the fiscal year 2001 report, the Service did not
include cost data that could not be attributed to a specific individual
species. These data are now included, and partially explains the
notable difference between the fiscal year 2000 and the fiscal year
2001 totals. The data contained in this row also include Service
recovery fund expenditures. The source of data for the row "Service
Recovery Expenditures" is unpublished data that the Service collected
for its expenditure reports. The Fiscal year 2000 data does not include
cost data that could not be attributed to a specific individual species
while the fiscal year 2001-2003 data does.
[End of table]
Congress amended the Endangered Species Act in 1979 to require the
Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to establish, and publish in
the Federal Register, agency guidelines that include a priority system
for developing and implementing recovery plans. The Service adopted
recovery priority guidelines in 1980 and amended them in 1983.[Footnote
13] The guidelines consist of two parts:
* Species are assigned a priority ranking between 1 and 18 on the basis
of (in descending order of importance) (1) the degree of threat
confronting the species, (2) recovery potential (the likelihood for
successfully recovering the species),[Footnote 14] and (3) taxonomy
(genetic distinctiveness).[Footnote 15] (See table 2.) Additionally, a
"c" is added to the ranking if there is conflict with economic
activities, like development; this gives the species priority over
other species with the same ranking but without a "c". Thus, the
highest possible priority ranking is a "1c". The Service sometimes
changes a species' priority ranking when warranted by a change in the
species' situation.
Table 2: Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Priority Ranking Schedule:
Priority rank: 1;
Degree of threat: High;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Monotypic genus.
Priority rank: 2;
Degree of threat: High;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Species.
Priority rank: 3;
Degree of threat: High;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Subspecies.
Priority rank: 4;
Degree of threat: High;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Monotypic genus.
Priority rank: 5;
Degree of threat: High;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Species.
Priority rank: 6;
Degree of threat: High;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Subspecies.
Priority rank: 7;
Degree of threat: Moderate;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Monotypic genus.
Priority rank: 8;
Degree of threat: Moderate;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Species.
Priority rank: 9;
Degree of threat: Moderate;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Subspecies.
Priority rank: 10;
Degree of threat: Moderate;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Monotypic genus.
Priority rank: 11;
Degree of threat: Moderate;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Species.
Priority rank: 12;
Degree of threat: Moderate;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Subspecies.
Priority rank: 13;
Degree of threat: Low;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Monotypic genus.
Priority rank: 14;
Degree of threat: Low;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Species.
Priority rank: 15;
Degree of threat: Low;
Recoverability potential: High;
Taxonomy: Subspecies.
Priority rank: 16;
Degree of threat: Low;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Monotypic genus.
Priority rank: 17;
Degree of threat: Low;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Species.
Priority rank: 18;
Degree of threat: Low;
Recoverability potential: Low;
Taxonomy: Subspecies.
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Species
Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines.
Note: A species that is a monotypic genus is the only remaining species
representing the entire genus.
[End of table]
* The second part of the priority system ranks the recovery tasks
within each recovery plan. Each task is assigned a priority number from
1 to 3, with 1 being the highest. A priority 1 task is "an action that
must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from
declining irreversibly." A priority 2 task is "an action that must be
taken to prevent a significant decline in species population/habitat
quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction",
and a priority 3 task is "all other actions necessary to provide for
full recovery of the species."[Footnote 16]
The recovery guidelines emphasize that they should be used only as a
guide, not as an inflexible framework for determining funding
allocations.
Within the Service, responsibility for implementing the act is divided
among its three administrative levels: headquarters, regions and field
offices. Headquarters officials develop policy and guidance and
allocate funding to the regions. Regional directors in the seven
regions (shown in figure 3) make most decisions on how to spend
endangered species program funds and are responsible for managing their
field offices' program activities. Field offices are responsible for
implementing program activities and setting priorities for projects
they will undertake.
Figure 3: Location of Fish and Wildlife Service's Seven Regions:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The U.S. Virgin Islands (not shown) is also part of the Southeast
Region.
[End of figure]
The Service Spends a Significant Portion of Recovery Funds on the
Highest Priority Species:
The Fish and Wildlife Service spent its recovery funds in a manner
generally consistent with species priority in fiscal years 2000 through
2003. From fiscal years 2000 to 2003, the Service spent 44 percent of
its recovery funds attributable to individual species on those species
with the highest priority, the 415 species ranked 1 through 3 on the 18-
point priority ranking scale (see fig. 4).[Footnote 17] However, 25 of
these species received no recovery funding at all during fiscal years
2000 through 2003.[Footnote 18] Additionally, two species with low
priority rankings, the bald eagle (with a priority ranking of 14c) and
the Canada lynx (with a ranking of 15), received substantial recovery
funding during fiscal years 2000-2003.
Figure 4: Recovery Expenditures by Priority Ranking, Fiscal Years 2000-
2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent due to rounding.
Recovery expenditures on species with priority numbers 16-18 are less
than one percent.
[End of figure]
One reason the Service spent 44 percent of its recovery funds
attributable to individual species on the highest priority species is
that this group accounts for a significant portion of all listed
species--one-third (see fig. 5). Similarly, the Service spent almost
all (94 percent) of its attributable recovery funds on species ranked 1
through 9 on the 18-point scale, which account for 92 percent of all
listed species.
Figure 5: Distribution of Species by Priority Ranking as of September
2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The distribution of species by priority ranking in fiscal years
2000, 2001 and 2002 is not substantially different from the
distribution in fiscal year 2003, see app I.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 6, analysis of average spending on a per species
basis also reveals that more expenditures are made on higher priority
species. Additionally, the analysis shows the emphasis the Service
placed on species with a high degree of recoverability. The relatively
large amount of funding spent on species with low priority rankings (13
through 15) is greatly influenced by spending on the bald eagle (with a
priority ranking of 14c) and the Canada lynx (with a ranking of 15).
The bald eagle is nearing delisting and the funding was spent on
delisting activities. The Canada lynx was embroiled in controversy that
required recovery staff to respond to litigation. When spending on
these two species is removed, the average amount spent on species in
this priority group is significantly lower.
Figure 6: Weighted Average Per Species Expenditure, by Priority
Ranking, Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to species priority ranking, another obvious measure of
priority is whether a species is endangered or threatened. Over three-
quarters (78 percent) of species protected under the act are listed as
endangered, and most of these have high priority rankings (see fig. 7).
We analyzed spending by species status (endangered or threatened) and
found that the Service spent a majority (64 percent) of its recovery
funds on endangered species during fiscal years 2000 through
2003.[Footnote 19]
Figure 7: Distribution of Endangered and Threatened Species by Priority
Ranking as of September 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Finally, we analyzed spending by the three taxonomic classifications
included in the Service's recovery priority guidelines--monotypic
genus, species, and subspecies. As shown in figure 8, an analysis of
average spending on a per species basis reveals that more expenditures
are made on listed entities classified as monotypic genus. A species
that is a monotypic genus is the only remaining species representing
the entire genus.
Figure 8: Weighted Average Per Species Expenditures, by Taxonomic
Classification, Fiscal Years 2000-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Service Considers Factors Besides Species Priority When Allocating
Recovery Funds but Does Not Assess the Results of Its Funding Decisions:
When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base these
decisions to a significant extent on factors other than a species'
priority ranking. At the headquarters level, a formula that accounts
for each region's workload, but not species' priority rankings,
determines how recovery funds are allocated. Each regional office
allocates recovery funds to their field offices differently, but in no
case is priority ranking the driving factor. Instead, regional
officials focus primarily on partnership opportunities, though regional
officials told us they do try to provide funds to species that have a
high degree of threat. Although field office staff we spoke with use
priority rankings, they also emphasized the importance of having
flexibility to allocate funds to develop partnerships. The Service does
not know the extent to which these disparate allocation systems yield
results consistent with the Service's priority guidelines because the
Service does not have a process to routinely measure the extent to
which it is spending its recovery funds on higher priority species.
Headquarters Allocates Funds to the Regions Based on Workload:
In making allocation decisions, headquarters does not consider a
species' priority ranking or any of the factors that go into
determining priority rankings. Instead, it allocates recovery funds to
its seven regions based primarily on a formula that estimates each
region's workload.[Footnote 20] The formula estimates the recovery
workload for each region by assigning each species a score of between 2
and 7 points, based on the type of species and its habitat needs.
Higher points are assigned to those species whose recovery requires
higher levels of funding or effort--factors that are not clearly
related to a species' priority ranking. For example, animals are
assigned 2 points while plants are assigned 1. Species that occupy
habitats larger than 1 million acres or are migratory or aquatic are
assigned 5 points whereas species that occupy less than 1,000 acres are
assigned 1 point. Recovery funds are then allocated to the regions
based on the number of species occurring in each region and the points
assigned to those species. Additionally, headquarters uses a workload-
based formula to allocate funds to regions to develop recovery plans.
Funds are allocated to each region based on the number of species that
it is responsible for that have not been exempted from the plan
requirement and that have been listed for 4 years or less. If after 4
years there is still no plan, then the region no longer receives
recovery-planning money for that species, though the region is still
responsible for completing that species' recovery plan.
Service officials in headquarters told us that they use an allocation
system based on workload rather than the priority guidelines for a
number of reasons. First, this system provides relatively stable
funding to each region from year to year. In contrast, priority
rankings can change over time, which would add an element of
unpredictability to the annual allocations. Stability is important,
according to Service officials, because most of a region's recovery
budget supports staff salaries for recovery biologists. These
biologists work on a wide variety of recovery activities including
helping to develop recovery plans, conducting as well as coordinating
on-the-ground actions to implement recovery plans, conducting periodic
species status reviews, developing recovery partnerships, and
litigation support. Second, although priority rankings indicate which
species are higher priority, they do not reflect how much money a
species needs. Service officials pointed out that higher priority
species are not necessarily more costly to recover than lower priority
species. Lastly, Service officials told us that a system based on
workload is more objective, and they expressed concern that the
subjective nature of priority rankings could create conflict between
the regions if allocations were based on these rankings. While Service
officials at headquarters told us that recovery funds should be spent
according to priority rankings, they believe those decisions should be
made at the regional level.
Almost all of the regional officials we talked to agreed that the
allocation system used by headquarters works well and is fair and
equitable, although some of them suggested changes. For example, some
regional and field office officials noted that a species' priority
ranking, particularly its degree of threat, could be included, along
with the existing workload factors, in headquarters' formula for
allocating recovery funds.
Regional Offices Focus on Opportunities for Partnerships When Making
Funding Decisions:
While each region allocates recovery funds to its field offices
differently, we found that the most important consideration among the
regions is to maintain and develop recovery partnerships, either by
funding long-standing arrangements to work with partners to recover
specific species or by taking advantage of opportunities to develop new
partnerships. For example, officials at the Southwest region told us
that for the last 10 years the region has allocated its discretionary
recovery funds primarily to four species for which it has long-standing
partnerships with other entities--the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, the
whooping crane, the Mexican wolf and the Attwater's prairie
chicken.[Footnote 21] The financial support from long-term partners, in
concert with expenditures from the Service, provides a stable funding
source for recovery projects from year to year, helping to create
viable recovery programs for these four species. For example, the
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle population has increased from a low of 270
females to several thousand females in the course of this long-term
partnership.
Service officials told us that it is important to maintain their yearly
contributions to long-standing partnerships, regardless of the species'
priority ranking, because the funds these partners contribute are
critical to species' recovery and the partners could lose interest
without the Service's contributions. Officials at all levels of the
Service reported to us that they have insufficient recovery funds.
Although it is difficult to develop an accurate estimate of the full
cost to recover all listed species (and it is unlikely that some
species will ever be recovered), we analyzed the cost data contained in
120 recovery plans covering an estimated 189 listed species.[Footnote
22] Based on the Service's estimated recovery costs in these plans, we
found that it would cost approximately $98 million dollars to fully
fund these plans--plans that cover just 15 percent of listed species--
for a single year.[Footnote 23] This amount is well above the $65
million the Service allocated in fiscal year 2003 to develop and
implement recovery plans and does not account for the recovery needs of
the remaining 1000 listed species. Even implementing only the highest
priority recovery plan tasks for those 120 plans--recovery plan tasks
"necessary to avoid extinction," would cost approximately $57 million,
nearly 90 percent of the Services' total recovery budget in fiscal year
2003. Consequently, the Service is dependent on monetary contributions
from partners to facilitate species recovery.
Regional officials not only fund long-standing partnerships, but look
for opportunities to develop new ones as well. Service officials
expressed concern that if they were confined to allocating funds
strictly by the priority system, they could alienate potential recovery
partners. For example, some regional officials pointed out that land
acquisition can take many years, so if willing sellers present
themselves, the region will take advantage of that opportunity by
allocating recovery funds to acquire those lands even if they do not
benefit a species of the highest priority. In another example,
officials in a field office in the Pacific region told us they were
able to leverage its $20,000 investment into a $60,000 project by
developing an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to jointly fund a
study to identify how the California red-legged frog was using suitable
habitat. Fish and Wildlife Service officials in the Pacific region also
leverage funds with non-federal partners. In 2002, a $10,000 investment
in desert tortoise monitoring from the Fish and Wildlife Service was
matched by $16,540 from Clark County, Nevada and $5,000 from the
Arizona Game and Fish Department. Almost all of the Service officials
we talked with stressed the importance of having the flexibility to
develop partnerships for recovery, particularly to leverage the
Service's scarce recovery funds.[Footnote 24] Finding partners and
other sources of funds to implement recovery actions is also strongly
emphasized in the Service's course on recovery implementation, which is
offered at the National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia
and other locations around the country.
While a species' priority ranking is not a primary factor for
determining how regions distribute recovery funds, regions do consider
priority rankings when making recovery allocations. The two regions
responsible for the most species, the Southeast region and the Pacific
region, specifically incorporate the priority system into their funding
allocations. In the Southeast, field offices and other divisions of the
Service, like Refuges,[Footnote 25] submit proposals to obtain recovery
funding to implement recovery plan tasks. Once the regional office
receives all the proposals, officials determine which ones to fund that
year. In doing so, they consider a number of factors, including the
species' priority ranking. Similarly, the Pacific regional office
reserves a portion of the recovery funds it receives and uses them to
fund proposals submitted by its field offices to implement recovery
plan tasks. One of the factors the region considers when determining
which proposals to fund is the species' priority ranking. Most of the
other regions we talked to told us that they consider some aspects of
the priority system when making funding decisions, particularly the
species' degree of threat, although they do not directly consider a
species' priority ranking.
Sometimes regions will also target funds to lower--priority species if
they are nearing recovery.[Footnote 26] For example, the bald eagle
ranked 20th among those species with the highest recovery expenditures
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2003, despite having a priority
ranking of 14c. A Service official attributed most of these
expenditures to delisting activities for the bald eagle. Many Service
officials pointed out that the priority system does not contain a
mechanism for funding species that are nearing recovery. Because a
species' priority will decrease as its threats are alleviated and it
moves closer to recovery, the priority system would dictate that other
more imperiled species be funded before those that are close to
delisting. Consequently, species close to recovery might never be
delisted because funds would not be allocated to complete the tasks
required for delisting. Service officials told us they need flexibility
to provide funds that will help get species off the list. Headquarters
officials have also recognized this issue and, beginning in fiscal year
2004, created a special fund that directs funding to species close to
delisting (as well as those close to extinction) in its "Showing
Success, Preventing Extinction" initiative.
Field Offices We Talked to Use the Priority System When Making Funding
Allocations:
In the field offices we contacted, we found that species' priority
rankings play an important role in recovery allocations. Service
personnel in four of the ten field offices we spoke with told us that a
species' priority ranking is one of the key factors they use to
allocate recovery funds.[Footnote 27] For example, in the Pacific
Islands field office, which is responsible for the recovery of over 300
species, officials use the recovery priority system as a "first step,"
then overlay other factors, like opportunities to leverage funding.
Staff in five of the remaining six offices we spoke with told us that
while they do not specifically use the priority system when making
recovery allocations, they do consider a species' degree of threat.
Staff in the last field office said they did not use the priority
system because most of their funds were spent according to direction
provided by the region.
Despite their use of the priority system, most of the field office
staff we contacted also stressed the importance of having the
flexibility to allocate funds to take advantage of unique opportunities
when they arise. For example, officials in a field office in California
told us they took advantage of an opportunity to leverage recovery
funding for the California red-legged frog. A population of this frog
was recently discovered in Calaveras County, site of Mark Twain's
famous story The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County, which
featured the California red-legged frog. The landowner where the
population was discovered was eager to work with the Service to build a
stock pond to provide habitat for the red-legged frog and eradicate
bullfrogs (red-legged frog competitors). The discovery of the frog
population was momentous because the species is important to local
lore, and a population of the frog had not been found in Calaveras
County since the late 1800s (see fig. 9). Even though the field office
has 65 species with higher priority rankings than the red-legged
frog,[Footnote 28] officials decided to address this recovery
opportunity because of the frog's importance to the local community.
Other unique events also require funding flexibility. In a Utah field
office last year, for example, a road expansion threatened the
existence of the clay phacelia, an endangered plant. The field office
staff responded to this threat by working with partners to collect
seeds for future propagation.
Figure 9: The California Red-Legged Frog Is Important to a California
Community Due to Its Prominence in a Famous Mark Twain Story:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Service Does Not Assess and Report on Its Recovery Fund
Expenditures:
The Service does not know the extent to which recovery fund
expenditures are consistent with its priority guidelines. All of the
Service's organizational levels participate in funding decisions, often
relying on factors other than species priority. Although our analysis
shows that the Service generally spent its recovery resources on higher
priority species during fiscal years 2000 through 2003, we found that
the Service has no process to routinely measure the extent to which it
is spending its recovery funds on higher priority species. Without this
information, the Service cannot ensure that it is spending its recovery
funds on such species, and in cases where it is not, determine whether
the funding decisions are appropriate. This is especially problematic
as circumstances change--for example, when species are added to the
list or priority rankings change for already-listed species.
Although the Service is required to report all federal and some state
expenditures on listed species,[Footnote 29] it does not separately
report how it spent its recovery funds by species. This lack of
separate reporting can make it difficult for Congress and others to
determine whether the Service is focusing its recovery resources on the
highest-priority species. For example, the species that received the
greatest total federal and state expenditures in fiscal year 2003 are
substantially different from those we identified as having received the
greatest portion of the Service's recovery fund expenditures. Of the 47
species that the Service reported as having received the greatest total
expenditures in fiscal year 2003,[Footnote 30] the Service has joint or
lead responsibility for 20 of them. The list of 20 species is radically
different from the list that we identified as having received the
greatest portion of the Service's recovery fund expenditures (see table
3). In the case of the Southwestern willow flycatcher, the Service
reported that more funds were expended on the flycatcher in fiscal year
2003 than for all but three other species for which the Service has
lead responsibility. However, the information the Service provided to
us shows that it spent relatively few recovery funds on the
Southwestern willow flycatcher in fiscal year 2003--it ranked 84TH in
the Service's recovery expenditures.
Table 3: Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species
Activities Compared to Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery
Expenditures During Fiscal Year 2003--for Top 20 Species:
Species name: Bull trout;
Priority ranking: 9c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: $29,295,633;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 1;
Service recovery fund expenditures: $2,063,748;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 2.
Species name: Rio Grande silvery minnow;
Priority ranking: 2c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 11,300,700;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 2;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 220,000;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 37.
Species name: Red-cockaded woodpecker;
Priority ranking: 8c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 11,069,069;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 3;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 505,676;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 18.
Species name: Southwestern willow flycatcher;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 9,909,284;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 4;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 54,160;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 84.
Species name: West Indian manatee;
Priority ranking: 5c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 9,798,514;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 5;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 996,457;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 4.
Species name: Bald eagle;
Priority ranking: 14c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 7,831,531;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 6;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 239,866;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 31.
Species name: Colorado pikeminnow (=squawfish);
Priority ranking: 8c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 7,262,592;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 7;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 225,009;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 35.
Species name: Razorback sucker;
Priority ranking: 1c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 7,127,470;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 8;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 242,733;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 30.
Species name: Desert tortoise;
Priority ranking: 8c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 6,522,281;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 9;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 223,064;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 36.
Species name: Florida panther;
Priority ranking: 6c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 6,301,276;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 10;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 135,869;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 50.
Species name: Atlantic salmon;
Priority ranking: 6c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,832,648;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 11;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 9,350;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 202.
Species name: Louisiana black bear;
Priority ranking: 9;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,613,874;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 12;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 193,107;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 42.
Species name: Grizzly bear;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,469,681;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 13;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 571,461;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 15.
Species name: Mexican spotted owl;
Priority ranking: 9c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,443,009;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 14;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 40,000;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 110.
Species name: Indiana bat;
Priority ranking: 8;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,218,103;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 15;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 256,750;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 28.
Species name: White sturgeon;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,197,021;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 16;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 21,900;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 148.
Species name: Humpback chub;
Priority ranking: 2c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,072,205;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 17;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 234,270;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 33.
Species name: Northern spotted owl;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,053,263;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 18;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 845,418;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 7.
Species name: Whooping crane;
Priority ranking: 2c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,029,588;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 19;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 589,912;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 14.
Species name: Loggerhead sea turtle;
Priority ranking: 7c;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: $4,767,416;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 20;
Service recovery fund expenditures: $270,623;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 26.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: The source of data for the column "Total Reported Federal and
State Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities" is the
Service's fiscal year 2003 expenditure report (Federal and State
Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service). We excluded species for which the National
Marine Fisheries Service has sole responsibility. We combined
expenditures for experimental and non-experimental populations when a
listed entity had both. The data include Service recovery fund
expenditures. The source of data for the column "Service Recovery Fund
Expenditures" is data reported to us by each of the Service's regional
offices. We did not determine the extent to which recovery fund
expenditures reported to us correspond with those included in the
Service's published expenditure report.
[End of table]
Total reported expenditures and Service recovery fund expenditures
differ substantially because the Service's recovery priority guidelines
do not apply to most of the reported funds--those funds provided by
other federal agencies and some funds reported by state
agencies.[Footnote 31] The Service has little control over how other
organizations spend their funds. The reported expenditures also include
Service expenditures in addition to recovery funds, such as
expenditures on listing and consultation, which are also not subject to
the Service's recovery guidelines. In fact, in many instances, the
Service does not have discretion over which species should receive
these funds. For example, the Service spends consultation funds largely
based on projects submitted to it by other federal agencies.
Not unexpectedly, the list of 20 species receiving the greatest portion
of the Service's recovery fund expenditures in fiscal year 2003 is also
different from the list of species receiving the greatest portion of
total federal and state expenditures in fiscal year 2003 (see table 4).
For example, the California condor and the Western population of the
gray wolf ranked first and third, respectively in recovery fund
expenditures but are ranked 25TH and 29TH, respectively in overall
federal and state expenditures.
Table 4: Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Expenditures Compared to
Total Reported Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities During
Fiscal Year 2003--for Top 20 Species:
Species name: California condor;
Priority ranking: 4c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: $2,810,000;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 1;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: $3,526,183;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 25.
Species name: Bull trout;
Priority ranking: 9c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 2,063,748;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 2;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 29,295,633;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 1.
Species name: Gray Wolf, Western Distinct Population Segment;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 1,789,940;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 3;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 3,261,662;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 29.
Species name: West Indian Manatee;
Priority ranking: 5c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 996,457;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 4;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 9,798,514;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 5.
Species name: Red wolf;
Priority ranking: 5c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 951,345;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 5;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 993,080;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 63.
Species name: Puerto Rican parrot;
Priority ranking: 2;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 900,000;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 6;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 1,419,800;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 50.
Species name: Northern spotted owl;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 845,418;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 7;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,053,263;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 18.
Species name: Gray Wolf, Southwestern Distinct Population Segment
(Mexican wolf);
Priority ranking: 3c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 800,000;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 8;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 934,170;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 66.
Species name: Steller's eider;
Priority ranking: 9;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 799,600;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 9;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 1,062,836;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 60.
Species name: Giant garter snake;
Priority ranking: 2c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 724,038;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 10;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 1,561,474;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 46.
Species name: Marbled murrelet;
Priority ranking: 3;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 677,739;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 11;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 4,754,652;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 21.
Species name: Bog turtle;
Priority ranking: 6c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 655,880;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 12;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 1,542,655;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 47.
Species name: Virgin River chub;
Priority ranking: 2c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 631,751;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 13;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 462,136;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 96.
Species name: Whooping crane;
Priority ranking: 2c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 589,912;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 14;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,029,588;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 19.
Species name: Grizzly bear;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 571,461;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 15;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 5,469,681;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 13.
Species name: Karner blue butterfly;
Priority ranking: 5;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 533,080;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 16;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 1,179,941;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 57.
Species name: Spectacled eider;
Priority ranking: 5;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 520,900;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 17;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 574,980;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 86.
Species name: Red-cockaded woodpecker;
Priority ranking: 8c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 505,676;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 18;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 11,069,069;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 3.
Species name: Black-footed ferret;
Priority ranking: 2;
Service recovery fund expenditures: 451,859;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 19;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: 2,360,970;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 40.
Species name: Western snowy plover;
Priority ranking: 3c;
Service recovery fund expenditures: $451,786;
Rank by service recovery fund expenditures: 20;
Total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered species
activities: $2,824,184;
Rank by total reported federal and state expenditures on all endangered
species activities: 35.
Soure: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: The source of data for the column "Total Reported Federal and
State Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities" is the
Service's fiscal year 2003 expenditure report (Federal and State
Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service). We excluded species for which the National
Marine Fisheries Service has sole responsibility. We combined
expenditures for experimental and non-experimental populations when a
listed entity had both. The data include Service recovery fund
expenditures. The source of data for the column "Service Recovery Fund
Expenditures" is data reported to us by each of the Service's regional
offices. We did not determine the extent to which recovery fund
expenditures reported to us correspond with those included in the
Service's published expenditure report.
[End of table]
Without a process to measure the extent to which it is spending its
recovery funds on the highest-priority species, the Service lacks
valuable information that would aid it in making management decisions.
For example, while maintaining partnerships to fund certain species may
be reasonable, many of these partnerships have been in place for many
years, and changes to the species' status or threat level, as well as
changes to the threat level of other species and the addition of newly
listed species, could have occurred in that time. As such, perhaps the
reasons for creating some of these partnerships may have been
superseded by other needs and it may no longer be appropriate for
particular species to garner so much funding from the region. Officials
in the Southwest region, for instance, told us that most of the
region's discretionary recovery funds are spent on four species (Kemp's
Ridley sea turtle, Whooping crane, Mexican wolf, and Attwater's prairie
chicken). These officials stated that they did not know these species'
recovery priority rankings until after we scheduled a meeting with
them, although they did believe the species to be highly ranked. While
these four species all have high priority rankings--2c, 2c, 3 and 3c,
respectively--the region has lead responsibility for about 80 other
species with a priority ranking between 1 and 3. Although many of these
species also received funding during fiscal years 2000-2003, more than
one-quarter (20 species) had no Service recovery fund expenditures
attributable to them.
Conclusions:
The Service faces a very difficult task--recovering more than 1,200
endangered and threatened species to the point that they no longer need
the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Many of these species
face grave threats and have been imperiled for years. There are few
easy solutions. Like many other federal agencies, the Service has
limited funds with which to address these challenges. Fortunately, many
other organizations contribute resources to help species. The Service
maintains that its ability to be flexible in allocating its scarce
recovery resources is the key to maximizing those contributions from
other organizations. We agree that exercising flexibility in allocating
recovery funds under its priority guidelines is important, but this
needs to occur within the bounds of a systematic and transparent
process. The Service, however, does not have such a process. While the
Service acknowledges that it strays from its priority guidelines, it
does not routinely analyze its allocation decisions to determine
whether it is focusing on the highest priority species and, if not,
why. Such an analysis is important to ensure that the Service continues
to spend its recovery funds on the highest priority species over the
long term. Without this information, the Service cannot show Congress
or the public the extent that it is focusing its resources on the
highest priority species, or explain, in cases where it is not, that
its resource decisions are still appropriate.
To this end, we believe the Service's priority guidelines provide it
with the means to create a systematic and transparent allocation
process while still allowing it needed flexibility. Because the Service
already collects data, on a species by species basis, on how it spends
its recovery funds, it would be a simple task to measure the extent to
which it is spending its recovery funds on high-priority species. It
could then make this information publicly available, thus providing the
Congress and the public a yardstick with which to judge the efficacy of
the Service's resource allocation decisions.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that the Service allocates recovery resources consistent
with the priority guidelines over the long term and in a transparent
fashion, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the
Service to take the following two actions: (1) periodically assess the
extent to which it is following its recovery priority guidelines and
identify how factors other than those in the guidelines are affecting
its funding allocation decisions, and (2) report this information
publicly, for example, in its biennial recovery report to Congress.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the
Department of the Interior. In general, the Department agreed with our
findings and recommendations but believes that we underestimated the
extent to which the Service's funding decisions are consistent with its
recovery priority guidelines. Because we found that the Service spent
its recovery funds in a manner generally consistent with species
priority, we do not believe this is a significant issue. See appendix
II for the Department's letter and our response to it. Additionally,
the Department provided technical comments that we have incorporated
into the report, as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At the time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Interior 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
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In response to a request from the Chairman, House Committee on
Resources, we (1) analyzed how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
allocation of recovery funds compares with its recovery priority
guidelines and (2) determined what factors influence the Service's
recovery funding allocation decisions. As agreed with the Chairman's
staff, we evaluated only those funds specifically spent by the Service
to implement its recovery program.
To address our first objective, we requested recovery expenditure data,
on a per species basis, from each of the Service's seven regions for
fiscal years 2000-2003.[Footnote 32] Because the Service spends most of
its recovery funds on salaries that are not allocated on a per species
basis, we asked officials in each region to attribute salaries to
specific species to the best of their abilities. To assess the
reliability of these data, we compared the total estimated expenditures
we received from each region for each year to budget documentation
provided by headquarters officials, the Department of the Interior's
Budget for fiscal years 2000-2003, and House and Senate committee
reports for Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal years
2000-2003. We also asked the regional officials who provided these data
a series of data reliability questions covering issues such as data
entry, access, quality control procedures, and the accuracy and
completeness of the data, as well as any limitations of the data. All
responded that the data were generally accurate, and all but one
performed some form of data review to ensure its accuracy.
Additionally, officials from all but one region noted, as a limitation
to the data, that it is sometimes difficult to link expenditures on
activities to specific species. We determined that the expenditure data
received from each of the Service's seven regions were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also obtained from the Service data on each species' priority number
for fiscal years 2000 through 2003, as well as other information about
each species, such as whether it is threatened or endangered and
whether it has a recovery plan. We did not make a judgment about the
adequacy or accuracy of the Service's recovery priority system. The
Service also provided us with information on the estimated costs to
implement approximately 120 recovery plans. We assessed the reliability
of these data by (1) electronically testing required data elements, (2)
reviewing existing information about the data and the system that
produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable
about the data. In addition, we compared the data set sent to us by the
Service to the Service's publicly available (online) Threatened and
Endangered Species System (TESS), which contains data on listed species
similar to that we received from the Service. When we identified any
difference between these two data sets, we independently corroborated,
to the extent possible, which data set was correct by obtaining
documentary evidence, either from the Federal Register or the
appropriate recovery plan. When appropriate according to this
documentary evidence, we made changes to the data sent to us by the
Service. For example, the spineless hedgehog cactus was listed in the
data set sent to us by the Service but was not found when we compared
it to online TESS. We checked the Federal Register and found that this
species was removed from the endangered species list in 1993, so we
removed it from the data set sent to us by the Service because our time
frame of interest is 2000 through 2003. In another instance, the data
set sent to us by the Service contained the Berkeley kangaroo rat, but
this species was not in TESS. We checked the recovery plan and found
that this is a "species of concern," not an endangered or threatened
species. The status field in the data sent to us by the Service was
blank, so we re-coded it as a species of concern and then removed it
from the data set because species of concern are not part of our
review. We also made changes to records that contained errors. For
example, the green sea turtle has two different populations. However,
the Fish and Wildlife Service reported the total recovery expenditures
for these two populations together. When expenditures were merged with
species lists, this expenditure total was shown twice. To address that
error we removed one expenditure total. All of these types of changes,
5 records with factual errors (or 0.4 percent of the records) and 9
with missing information (0.7 percent of the records), were reviewed
and agreed to by all team analysts and supervisors. We also found and
removed 14 duplicates and 27 records that were outside our scope (e.g.,
outside our date range or species managed by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, not the Fish and Wildlife Service). On the basis of
all of this work, we determined that the data on species and recovery
plans we received from Fish and Wildlife Service were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report.
We then compared the expenditures on each species with the species'
priority ranking for fiscal year 2000 through 2003. We grouped together
species with similar rankings to deemphasize minor differences in
species' rankings. Grouping species this way had the effect of
eliminating the taxonomic distinction among species found in the
recovery priority guidelines. Table 5 shows the groupings.
Table 5: GAO Groupings of Priority Numbers:
GAO group: GAO group 1;
Priority Number: 1, 1c.
GAO group: GAO group 1;
Priority number: 2, 2c.
GAO group: GAO Group 1:
Priority number: 3, 3c.
GAO group: GAO group 2:
Priority number: 4, 4c.
GAO group: GAO group 2;
Priority number: 5, 5c.
GAO group: GAO Group 2;
Priority number: 6, 6c.
GAO group: GAO group 3:
Priority number: 7, 7c.
GAO group: GAO group 3;
Priority number: 8, 8c.
GAO Group: GAO Group 3;
Priority number: 9, 9c.
GAO group: GAO group 4:
Priority number: 10, 10c.
GAO group: GAO group 4;
Priority number: 11, 11c.
GAO group: GAO group 4;
Priority number: 12, 12c.
GAO group: GAO group 5:
Priority number: 13, 13c.
GAO group: GAO group 5;
Priority number: 14, 14c.
GAO group: GAO group 5;
Priority number: 15, 15c.
GAO group: GAO group 6:
Priority number: 16, 16c.
GAO group: GAO group 6;
Priority number: 17, 17c.
GAO group: GAO Group 6;
Priority number: 18, 18c.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We also assumed that the average cost to implement recovery plans in
each group was the same. We made this assumption explicitly because the
cost to implement individual recovery plans can vary substantially
among species. For example, we analyzed the cost to implement 120
recovery plans (the only plans with these data available
electronically) covering an estimated 189 species (or 15 percent of
listed species) and found that some plans are very costly--
$107,516,000--and some are not--$18,000. However, many plans fall
between these two extremes, costing between $1 million and $6 million.
We discussed this assumption with the Service, and they agreed to its
reasonableness.
The number of species in each priority group varied by year (see table
6).
Table 6: Number of Species in Each Priority Group, by Year:
Priority group: 1;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2000: 395;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2001: 408;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2002: 416;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2003: 415.
Priority group: 2;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2000: 432;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2001: 436;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2002: 444;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2003: 448.
Priority group: 3;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2000: 290;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2001: 285;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2002: 286;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2003: 284.
Priority group: 4;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2000: 47;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2001: 47;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2002: 46;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2003: 47.
Priority group: 5;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2000: 45;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2001: 46;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2002: 47;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2003: 48.
Priority group: 6;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2000: 7;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2001: 6;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2002: 6;
Number of species in each priority group: FY 2003: 6.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
[End of table]
In order to analyze overall average spending on a per species bases, we
calculated weighted average expenditures per species by priority
ranking. To do this we weighted the average expenditure per species for
a specific priority group and fiscal year by the proportion: (Number of
species in a particular priority group and fiscal year)/(Number of
species in same priority group over all fiscal years).
In addressing our second objective, to determine what factors influence
the Service's recovery funding allocation decisions, we interviewed
managers and recovery biologists in the Service's recovery division in
headquarters, all seven regions and a nonprobability sample of 10 field
offices.[Footnote 33] We selected at least one field office from each
region and selected a second field office from the two regions that
collectively have lead responsibility for more than 50 percent of the
endangered and threatened species in the United States. Within each
region, we selected field offices that have lead responsibility for a
high number of species relative to other field offices in that region.
The region responsible for the largest number of species, the Pacific
region, is operated as two divisions, and we selected a field office
from each division. The field office locations in our nonprobability
sample were:
* Hawaii (Pacific Region):
* Sacramento, California (Pacific Region):
* Arizona (Southwest Region):
* Columbia, Missouri (Great Lakes Region):
* Cookeville, Tennessee (Southeast Region):
* Vero Beach, Florida (Southeast Region):
* Virginia (Northeast Region):
* Utah (Mountain-Prairie Region):
* Anchorage, Alaska (Alaska Region):
* Fairbanks, Alaska (Alaska Region):
Through our interviews we obtained information on how recovery funds
are allocated, the role of the recovery priority system, and suggested
improvements to the recovery priority system. We compared the answers
we received in these interviews to documents or expenditure data
provided by the Service, to the extent this corroborating evidence was
available.
In addressing both objectives, we reviewed publicly available documents
and other information obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service's
Website. We also reviewed articles in academic and scientific
literature related to recovery planning and recovery prioritization,
including an extensive study of recovery plans conducted by the Society
for Conservation Biology and funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We performed our work from February 2004 to January 2005, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary Policy, Management And Budget:
Washington, DC 20240:
March 11, 2005:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability
Office report entitled, "Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service
Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species but Needs
to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions," GAO-05-21 l, initially
dated January 10, 2005, and revised on February 14, 2005. In general,
we agree with the findings and the recommendations in the revised
report.
We appreciate GAO's recognition that recovering endangered species
takes a significant amount of time and money, and that we are doing a
good job with the resources available. We are spending recovery funds
on high priority species, but we are also spending money on species
that are close to downlisting and delisting. We continue to make
strides at both levels-keeping species from going extinct and moving
species toward the ultimate goal of not needing protection under the
Endangered Species Act.
However, we would like to highlight an issue that appears only as a
footnote on page 18 of the report. Each year, Congress directs that
certain of the funds appropriated for the recovery program be expended
on projects for particular species. As written, the revised report
appears to reflect these funds as discretionary dollars available to
the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to allocate under its recovery
priority guidelines. In fact, the President's annual budget proposes
not to fund Congressionally directed projects and requests the funds
for high priority species and projects. However, each year Congress
directs or re-directs that such specific projects be funded, regardless
of their priority. We believe that by including funds spent on these
Congressionally directed project dollars with the Service's
discretionary funding decisions, the draft report underestimates the
degree to which the Service's funding decisions are consistent with its
recovery priority guidelines.
In addition, while we agree with GAO's fording that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service does not "separately report on how it spent its
recovery funds by species," it should be noted that the Service does
comply with the requirement under section 18 of the Endangered Species
Act to report annually on all reasonably identifiable Federal and State
expenditures for listed species, by species. This report includes all
reasonably identifiable expenditures for recovery efforts. The recovery
expenditures are not separately identified by species because the Act
does not call for such a breakdown.
Lastly, we take issue with a conclusion found in the opening section of
the report and repeated elsewhere. The draft report states in paragraph
2 of page 1 that the Act requires the Service to establish guidelines
for prioritizing the development and implementation of recovery plans
to address concerns that recovery funds were not being directed at the
most imperiled species. (emphasis supplied):
While we are not in a position to address the concerns which Congress
may have had in adopting this provision, the plain wording of the Act
would indicate that concern for the most imperiled species was not the
purpose here.
Neither the Act nor Service guidelines provide that funding should be
allocated preferentially to species with the highest priority ranking
as depicted on Table 2. To the contrary, the Act expressly requires, in
section 4(f)(1)(a), that the Service:
"in developing and implementing recovery plans shall, to the maximum
extent practicable--"
(A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species,
without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to
benefit from such plans, particularly those species that are, or may
be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or
other forms of economic activity."
Accordingly, the Service focus on opportunities for partnerships, where
multiple parties will act to the benefit of the species, seems fully in
accordance with statutory direction.
The enclosure provides specific comments from the Service and the
Department's Office of Policy Analysis. We hope these comments will
assist you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Enclosure:
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated March 11, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. We agree that some of the recovery funds included in our analysis of
how recovery fund allocations compare with the Service's recovery
guidelines include funds for which Congress has provided direction that
they be spent on particular projects or species. However, we do not
believe that by including these funds we have underestimated the degree
to which the Service's funding decisions are consistent with its
recovery priority guidelines. First, we found that the Service spent
its recovery funds in a manner generally consistent with species
priority. Second, we analyzed a list, provided to us by the Service, of
congressionally directed funds and associated projects for fiscal years
2000 through 2003. We compared this list with the priority rankings of
the species associated with the projects in a way similar to how we
compared species' expenditures and priority rankings in our report. We
found that the list of congressionally directed funds resulted in a
spending pattern similar to what we identified when we compared
species' expenditures and priority rankings in our report. Thus, by
including these funds in our analysis of how recovery funds allocations
compare with the Service's recovery guidelines, we do not believe that
we have underestimated the degree to which the Service's funding
decisions are consistent with its recovery priority guidelines.
2. We agree that the Endangered Species Act does not require it to
report separately on how it spent its recovery funds by species.
However, reporting this information could be part of an effective
strategy to help ensure that the Service allocates recovery resources
consistent with the priority guidelines over the long term and in a
transparent fashion.
3. In our report, we use the term "imperiled" instead of "threatened"
to avoid confusion with the distinction the act makes between
"threatened species" and "endangered species." We agree that the act
does not state that the purpose for requiring the Service to establish
guidelines for prioritizing the development and implementation of
recovery plans was to address concerns that recovery funds were not
being directed at the most imperiled species. We have modified the
report accordingly.
However, we disagree with the Department's contention that its recovery
priority guidelines do not provide that funding should be allocated
preferentially to species with the highest priority ranking as depicted
in table 2 of our report. The Department relies on a table in the
guidelines that is virtually identical to table 2 in our report to
describe its priority system. Section 4(h)(4) of the act specifically
directs the Service to establish guidelines that shall include "a
system for developing and implementing, on a priority basis, recovery
plans under subsection (f) of this section." Further, the guidelines
state that "the species with the highest degree of threat have the
highest priority for preparing and implementing recovery plans." In
addition, the guidelines state that they are to "aid in determining how
to make the most appropriate use of resources available to implement
the act."
The Department also contends that allocating funding preferentially to
species with the highest priority ranking is contrary to section
4(f)(1)(A) of the act. This provision, which was added in a 1982
amendment to the act, states that recovery plans shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, give priority to species most likely to benefit
from such plans, particularly those that are, or may be, in conflict
with construction or other development projects, or other forms of
economic activity. The guidelines specifically state that the priority
system established by the guidelines "is intended to satisfy the
requirements of the amended Act." Accordingly, the guidelines include
likelihood to benefit from recovery plans and conflict as factors.
We agree with the Department that focusing on opportunities for
partnerships where multiple parties will work to the benefit of the
species is consistent with section 4(f)(1)(A) of the act. In fact, we
conclude in our report that the Service's ability to be flexible in
allocating its scarce recovery resources is the key to maximizing
contributions from other organizations. However, we believe that this
flexibility needs to occur within the bounds of a systematic and
transparent process and make recommendations to this effect.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Trish McClure (202) 512-6318:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Charles Egan, Jaelith Hall-
Rivera, Barry T. Hill, Summer Pachman, Paula Bonin, Judy Pagano, and
Cynthia Norris made key contributions to this report.
(360427):
FOOTNOTES
[1] As of September 30, 2004.
[2] The Department of the Interior has delegated its responsibility for
freshwater and land species to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which established an endangered species program to implement the
requirements of the act. Responsibility for implementing the act for
anadromous fish and most marine species resides with the Department of
Commerce, which has delegated its responsibilities to the National
Marine Fisheries Service. This report does not address the National
Marine Fisheries Service program.
[3] 48 Fed. Reg. 43098 (Sept. 21, 1983).
[4] All dollars in this report are in current year dollars.
[5] The act requires the Service to submit to Congress by January 15TH
an annual report covering the preceding fiscal year containing an
accounting of a species by species basis for all reasonably
identifiable expenditures made primarily for the conservation of
endangered or threatened species pursuant to the act.
[6] In this report, the term "spent" refers to budget outlays or
expenditures.
[7] This does not include foreign species--species whose current and
historic range occurs entirely under the jurisdiction of other
countries.
[8] Some species were delisted because new information showed the
species to be more widespread or abundant than believed at the time the
species was listed. Other species were delisted for taxonomic reasons,
meaning that additional analysis found the species was not unique; for
example, it was simply a population of another common species making it
ineligible for listing. One species, the Hoover's woolly-star, was
delisted as a result of recovery actions and because of the
availability of new information--specifically, a new population was
discovered. We counted this species as one of the 9 species delisted as
a result of recovery efforts.
[9] The Service does not require recovery plans for foreign species.
[10] The latest report is Recovery Report to Congress, Fiscal Years
2001-2002; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[11] See, for example, Federal and State Endangered and Threatened
Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
This is the most recent report available.
[12] In fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002 the Service allocated,
respectively, $56 million, $60 million and $64 million in recovery
funds.
[13] 48 Fed. Reg. 43098 (Sept. 21, 1983).
[14] According to the Service's priority guidelines, the criteria used
to determine recovery potential are how well the ecological processes
and threats that affect the species are understood, how easily the
threats can be alleviated, and whether intensive management is needed
to recover the species.
[15] According to the Service's priority guidelines, the criterion
related to taxonomy (genetic distinctiveness) is intended to devote
resources on a priority basis to those species representing highly
distinctive or isolated gene pools, as reflected by the taxonomic level
at which they are recognized.
[16] We did not assess how the Service's allocation of recovery funds
compares with task priority.
[17] There were 415 species ranked 1 through 3 at the end of fiscal
year 2003. In fiscal years 2000 through 2002 there were 395, 408 and
416 species ranked 1 through 3, respectively. Our analysis of species
priority rankings considered species, subspecies and populations of
species, as appropriate. For example, different wolf populations have
different priority rankings.
[18] Twenty-five of the 415 species ranked 1 through 3 in fiscal year
2003 received no funding attributable to individual species during
fiscal years 2000-2003.
[19] This analysis compares spending in fiscal years 2000 through 2003
with species status as of September 30, 2003. Between fiscal years 2000
and 2003, the Service changed the status of only two domestic species,
both from endangered to threatened. The species were the large-flowered
skullcap and two populations of the gray wolf.
[20] Some funds are not allocated according to this formula. For
example, headquarters sets aside approximately $1,000,000 for delisting
and downlisting activities and approximately $1,000,000 for "capability
funding" annually. Capability funding is used to help staff in each
region maintain a basic competency in recovery-related tasks.
Additionally, the Service allocates some funds based on direction
provided it by Congress, for example, through appropriation committee
conference reports.
[21] Discretionary recovery funds are those funds left after the region
covers salaries, benefits, directives from headquarters, including
items funded at the direction of Congress.
[22] These 120 plans were the ones for which the Service provided us
with electronic versions of the plans' implementation schedules, which
enabled us to complete this analysis.
[23] We calculated this number by determining the average cost to
implement each plan based on the cost data in the plan and then summed
the averages. This figure does not include all estimated recovery
costs, particularly land acquisition costs, which can be expensive.
[24] We were not able to quantify all funds provided by federal and non-
federal partners in implementing recovery actions because they do not
maintain expenditure data in this way.
[25] Refuges are a division of the Service that is responsible for
managing National Wildlife Refuges.
[26] These funds may come from the $1,000,000 headquarters sets aside
for delisting and downlisting or they may come from the region's
recovery budget.
[27] According to Service officials, there are approximately 70 field
offices that have lead responsibility for recovering species.
[28] This California field office has the lead responsibility for 104
species.
[29] The act requires the Service to submit to Congress by January 15TH
an annual report covering the preceding fiscal year containing an
accounting on a species by species basis of all reasonably identifiable
federal expenditures made primarily for the conservation on endangered
or threatened species pursuant to the act. The act also requires the
Service to report similar expenditure information for states receiving
grants under section 6 of the act.
[30] See Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species
Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003. This is the most recent report
available.
[31] One exception is grants made to states. The act authorizes the
Service to provide financial assistance to states to assist in the
development of programs for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species and for other reasons. The Service considers
recovery priority rankings when awarding these grants.
[32] Similar data collected by the Service for its fiscal year 2001,
2002, and 2003 expenditure reports became available in January 2005--
too late to be used for most of the analyses in this report.
[33] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population because in a nonprobability sample some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
