Endangered Species
Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are Largely Unknown Gao ID: GAO-06-463R April 6, 2006The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing extinction (endangered species) or likely to face extinction (threatened species) and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The act has long been a lightning rod for political debate about the extent to which the nation's natural resources should be protected and how best to protect them. Implementation of the act has also been the subject of numerous lawsuits that have consumed significant program resources. Since the act's inception, about 1,300 domestic species have been placed on the list of threatened and endangered species. Supporters of the act claim it is an indication of the act's success that only 9 of these species have gone extinct; particularly, since by the time they are listed species, they are often in critical condition. Critics, on the other hand, counter that it is an indication of the act's failure that only 17 of these species have "recovered," or improved to the point that they no longer need the act's protection. However, we believe that these numbers, by themselves, are not a good gauge of the act's success or failure; additional information on when, if at all, a species can be expected to fully recover and be removed from the list would provide needed context for a fair evaluation of the act's performance. Similarly, estimates of the total costs to recover the species would be necessary to evaluate whether sufficient resources have been devoted to recovery efforts. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as "the services," are the federal agencies responsible for ensuring implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The act generally requires the services to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. As of January 2006, the services had finalized and approved 558 recovery plans covering 1,049 species, or about 82 percent of the 1,272 endangered or threatened species protected in the United States. Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are under consideration, and Congress has asked us to provide information on the recovery plans themselves and the progress made on their implementation to help facilitate this effort. To address these issues, for a randomly selected sample of 107 recovery plans, we identified the extent to which plans included (1) overall time and cost estimates to recover species and (2) the three key elements set forth in the 1988 amendment. We determined the plans' time and cost estimates and the extent to which they contain the key elements based on information contained in the plans. We also conducted work on a group of 30 selected species to determine the factors affecting the length of recovery and the role that recovery plans have played in the species' progress toward recovery. On February 8, 2006, we briefed Congressional staff on our findings relating to our work addressing the 107 recovery plans. At Congressional request, we are transmitting with this report the briefing slides that summarized our observations
Of the 107 plans we reviewed, 73 plans do not provide estimates of when the species are expected to be recovered and 87 plans do not provide estimates of the total cost to recover the species. When such estimates are included, they vary widely. Of the 34 plans that provide a time estimate, 7 plans indicate that the species were expected to have been recovered by 2005; the remaining plans indicate that the species are expected to be recovered within the next 50 years. Twenty of the 107 plans include cost estimates. These plans have an average cost estimate for recovery of $15.9 million and a median cost estimate of $1.4 million. The highest estimate is $125 million to recover the Whooping crane and the lowest is $58,000 to recover the Decurrent false aster--a flowering plant in Illinois and Missouri. While both FWS and NMFS guidance documents discuss including overall time and cost estimates for achieving recovery in recovery plans, we found that most plans only included time and costs estimates for implementing recovery actions for just a 5- to 7-year period. FWS and NMFS recovery program officials told us that many plans do not include overall time and cost estimates because of the difficulty in developing precise estimates due to many uncertainties, such as the availability and willingness of partners to aid in recovery efforts and the uncertainty of biological responses to recovery actions. Officials also said, however, that it would be possible to develop broad estimates for most species. NMFS officials said that they anticipate that recovery plans will include overall cost estimates for recovery, in accordance with their recently issued guidance. Almost all of the 107 recovery plans we reviewed have two of the three key elements identified in the act, but few include the third element. First, we found that all of the plans we reviewed include site-specific management actions, although the level of specificity varies greatly. Some plans contain many detailed actions; while others contain fewer, higher level actions. In instances where little is known about the species, the focus of site-specific management actions is often on research and data gathering. Second, almost all of the 107 plans we reviewed include time and cost estimates for implementing site-specific management actions; 4 plans did not contain this information, but stated that doing so was not practicable. In contrast, only 5 of the 107 plans we reviewed included the third element--recovery criteria that address all five delisting factors. Twenty-three plans either state why providing recovery criteria was not practicable or indicate that the species is thought to be extinct or not recoverable. An additional 57 plans include some recovery criteria but do not evidence consideration of all five delisting factors. The remaining 22 plans do not include any recovery criteria for delisting and do not state why providing such criteria was not practicable.
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-06-463R, Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are Largely Unknown
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-463R
entitled 'Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover
Species Are Largely Unknown' which was released on April 6, 2006.
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.
April 6, 2006:
Congressional Requesters:
Subject: Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species
Are Largely Unknown:
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing extinction
(endangered species) or likely to face extinction (threatened species)
and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The act has long been a
lightning rod for political debate about the extent to which the
nation's natural resources should be protected and how best to protect
them. Implementation of the act has also been the subject of numerous
lawsuits that have consumed significant program resources.[Footnote 1]
Since the act's inception, about 1,300 domestic species have been
placed on the list of threatened and endangered species. Supporters of
the act claim it is an indication of the act's success that only 9 of
these species have gone extinct; particularly, since by the time they
are listed species, they are often in critical condition. Critics, on
the other hand, counter that it is an indication of the act's failure
that only 17 of these species have "recovered," or improved to the
point that they no longer need the act's protection. However, we
believe that these numbers, by themselves, are not a good gauge of the
act's success or failure; additional information on when, if at all, a
species can be expected to fully recover and be removed from the list
would provide needed context for a fair evaluation of the act's
performance. Similarly, estimates of the total costs to recover the
species would be necessary to evaluate whether sufficient resources
have been devoted to recovery efforts.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as "the services," are the
federal agencies responsible for ensuring implementation of the
Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 2] The act generally requires the
services to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation
and survival of endangered and threatened species.[Footnote 3] As of
January 2006, the services had finalized and approved 558 recovery
plans covering 1,049 species, or about 82 percent of the 1,272
endangered or threatened species protected in the United States.
A 1988 amendment to the Endangered Species Act requires the services to
incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, three key elements in
each recovery plan:
(1) Site-specific management actions - descriptions of such site-
specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan's
goal for the conservation and survival of the species.
(2) Time and cost estimates - estimates of the time required and cost
to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan's goal and to
achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.
(3) Recovery criteria - objective, measurable criteria which, when met,
would result in a determination, in accordance with provisions of the
act, that the species be removed from the list of threatened and
endangered species (i.e., delisted). Courts have found that the
Endangered Species Act requires the services to address each of five
delisting factors to the maximum extent practicable when designing
recovery criteria.[Footnote 4] These five delisting factors are the
same factors that are considered when listing a species: (1) the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a
species' habitat or range; (2) overutilization of the species for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting a
species' continued existence.
Both of the services have guidance for developing recovery plans. FWS's
guidance was issued in 1990 and states that, among other things,
recovery plans must include estimates of the time required for
accomplishing recovery, assuming that sufficient funds are provided,
and cost estimates to complete recovery of the species; if the estimate
is uncertain, the nature of the uncertainty must be discussed in the
plan.[Footnote 5] FWS's guidance also directs that recovery plans set
forth precise, measurable criteria to determine when recovery has been
achieved (if it is achievable); however, the five delisting factors are
not specifically addressed in the guidance. NMFS's recovery planning
guidance, which was issued in 2004, also discusses time and cost
estimates and recovery criteria.[Footnote 6] NMFS's guidance states
that plans should include a cost estimate for complete recovery and
indicate the anticipated year all recovery criteria could be met, if
all actions were fully funded at the indicated levels. Regarding
recovery criteria, the guidance recognizes that legal challenges to
recovery plans have affirmed the need to frame recovery criteria in
terms of the five delisting factors. However, the guidance does not
direct staff to address all five delisting factors or explain why it is
not practicable to do so.
Another key provision of the 1988 amendment to the act requires the
services to report biennially on efforts to develop and implement
recovery plans for all listed species, and on the status of all species
for which plans have been developed.[Footnote 7] The reports include,
on a species-by-species basis, information on the progress made to
implement recovery actions and on whether a species is declining,
increasing, or stable or if its status is uncertain. The reports are
publicly available on the agencies' Web pages. Because these reports
provide, in a concise and easily accessible format, summary information
on all of the nearly 1,300 listed species, they are valuable tools that
can be used for understanding the progress made on recovering species.
Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are under
consideration, and you have asked us to provide information on the
recovery plans themselves and the progress made on their implementation
to help facilitate this effort. To address these issues, for a randomly
selected sample of 107 recovery plans, we identified the extent to
which plans included (1) overall time and cost estimates to recover
species and (2) the three key elements set forth in the 1988 amendment.
We determined the plans' time and cost estimates and the extent to
which they contain the key elements based on information contained in
the plans. We also conducted work on a group of 30 selected species to
determine the factors affecting the length of recovery and the role
that recovery plans have played in the species' progress toward
recovery. On February 8, 2006, we briefed your staffs on our findings
relating to our work addressing the 107 recovery plans. At your
request, we are transmitting with this report the briefing slides that
summarized our observations (see encl. I). This report presents the
final results of our work analyzing these plans, including
recommendations to the services that we discussed with your staffs. We
will issue a later report to present our results on the work related to
the 30 selected species.
Because the Endangered Species Act only requires the services to
include the key elements to the maximum extent practicable, the absence
of key elements from a recovery plan does not necessarily mean that the
services have failed to meet statutory requirements. Courts have noted
that the phrase "to the maximum extent practicable" imposes a clear
duty on the services to include the key elements in the recovery plan
to the extent that it is feasible or possible. In a number of cases
where the services have not included key elements in recovery plans,
courts have required them to either include the missing element or to
provide an explanation regarding why its incorporation was not
practicable. For purposes of this report, we only evaluated whether the
key elements were present in the recovery plans and did not make any
determinations regarding whether a recovery plan met or failed to meet
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
We found the following:
Of the 107 plans we reviewed, 73 plans do not provide estimates of when
the species are expected to be recovered and 87 plans do not provide
estimates of the total cost to recover the species. When such estimates
are included, they vary widely. Of the 34 plans that provide a time
estimate, 7 plans indicate that the species were expected to have been
recovered by 2005;[Footnote 8] the remaining plans indicate that the
species are expected to be recovered within the next 50 years. Twenty
of the 107 plans include cost estimates. These plans have an average
cost estimate for recovery of $15.9 million and a median cost estimate
of $1.4 million. The highest estimate is $125 million to recover the
Whooping crane and the lowest is $58,000 to recover the Decurrent false
aster--a flowering plant in Illinois and Missouri. While both FWS and
NMFS guidance documents discuss including overall time and cost
estimates for achieving recovery in recovery plans, we found that most
plans only included time and costs estimates for implementing recovery
actions for just a 5-to 7-year period. FWS and NMFS recovery program
officials told us that many plans do not include overall time and cost
estimates because of the difficulty in developing precise estimates due
to many uncertainties, such as the availability and willingness of
partners to aid in recovery efforts and the uncertainty of biological
responses to recovery actions. Officials also said, however, that it
would be possible to develop broad estimates for most species. NMFS
officials said that they anticipate that recovery plans will include
overall cost estimates for recovery, in accordance with their recently
issued guidance.
Almost all of the 107 recovery plans we reviewed have two of the three
key elements identified in the act, but few include the third element.
First, we found that all of the plans we reviewed include site-specific
management actions, although the level of specificity varies greatly.
Some plans contain many detailed actions; while others contain fewer,
higher level actions. In instances where little is known about the
species, the focus of site-specific management actions is often on
research and data gathering. Second, almost all of the 107 plans we
reviewed include time and cost estimates for implementing site-specific
management actions; 4 plans did not contain this information, but
stated that doing so was not practicable.[Footnote 9] In contrast, only
5 of the 107 plans we reviewed included the third element--recovery
criteria that address all five delisting factors. Twenty-three plans
either state why providing recovery criteria was not practicable or
indicate that the species is thought to be extinct or not recoverable.
An additional 57 plans include some recovery criteria but do not
evidence consideration of all five delisting factors. The remaining 22
plans do not include any recovery criteria for delisting and do not
state why providing such criteria was not practicable.
Conclusions:
The success of the Endangered Species Act is difficult to measure
because some of the recovery plans we reviewed indicated that species
were not likely to be recovered for up to 50 years. Therefore, simply
counting the number of extinct and recovered species periodically or
over time, without considering the recovery prospects of listed
species, provides limited insight into the overall success of the
services' recovery programs. An alternative measure of the act's
success would also consider estimates of if and when a species is
likely to be recovered and the resources needed to prevent its
extinction and promote its recovery. This information, however, has not
been routinely included in species' recovery plans. FWS's 1990 guidance
states that plans must include total time and cost estimates for
recovery and NMFS recently issued guidance stating that recovery plans
should include total time and cost estimates for recovery. Although
developing precise estimates may be difficult given the uncertainties
involved, agency officials agreed that broad estimates would be
possible for most species. Including such estimates in individual
recovery plans and making them easily accessible in a single report or
other format, would not only facilitate measuring program success but
would also provide policy makers with valuable information for
identifying resource needs.
Furthermore, while both NMFS and FWS recognize the importance of
establishing recovery criteria, neither direct Service personnel to
address all five delisting factors in designing those recovery
criteria. As we have reported in the past, there is a long history of
extensive litigation on implementation of the Endangered Species Act
that has consumed significant program resources. Omissions of recovery
criteria evidencing consideration of all five delisting factors in
plans may be another opening for similar litigation. A proactive
response to this issue could save the services significant resources in
avoided future litigation.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To facilitate measuring the success of the Endangered Species Act and
provide policy makers with valuable information for identifying
resource needs, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and
Commerce direct the services to report estimates of the time and cost
needed to recover species in a single location that is easily
accessible by Congress and the public, (e.g., in the biennial recovery
reports to Congress). To accomplish this task, the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce should ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively, implement
their current recovery planning guidance when drafting or revising
recovery plans so that plans routinely estimate the overall time and
cost to recover species.
To meet the Endangered Species Act's requirement that recovery plans,
to the maximum extent practicable, include recovery criteria and, to
not expose the services to a higher-than-necessary risk of litigation
and their attendant costs, we recommend that the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce direct the services to include in recovery
planning guidance, direction that all new and revised recovery plans
have either recovery criteria evidencing consideration of all five
delisting factors or a statement regarding why it is not practicable to
do so.
Agency Comments:
The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce provided
written comments on a draft of this report (see enclosures II and III,
respectively). A summary of their comments and our responses to them
are included below. The departments also provided technical comments,
which we have incorporated into the report where appropriate.
The Department of the Interior generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations and provided information about how it intends to
implement the recommendations, including the title of the responsible
official and the target date for implementation.
The Department of Commerce also generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations but took issue with our statement that the courts have
found that the Endangered Species Act requires the services to address
each of the five delisting factors to the maximum extent practicable
when designing recovery criteria. Although the Department agreed to
adopt our recommendation that all new and revised recovery plans have
either recovery criteria evidencing consideration of all five delisting
factors or a statement as to why it is not practicable to do so, the
Department states that its current practice of addressing only those
delisting factors that are relevant to the species is consistent with
recent court rulings. However, court rulings, including one referenced
in NMFS's recovery planning guidance, contradict this statement. NMFS's
guidance includes a quote from a 1995 court case, which reads in part
"the Court necessarily concludes that the FWS, in designing objective,
measurable criteria, must address each of the five statutory delisting
factors."[Footnote 10]
Additionally, the Department of Commerce agreed with our recommendation
that the National Marine Fisheries Service include estimates of the
time and cost to recover species in a single, easily accessible
location. To accomplish this, we recommended that NMFS include in its
recovery planning guidance direction that time estimates for species
recovery be included in new and revised recovery plans. NMFS, however,
has identified a provision in its guidance that already requires this,
although they note that their guidance could be more explicit with
regard to time estimates. We made appropriate changes to our report.
Our scope and methodology are discussed in enclosure IV. We performed
our work from March 2005 through February 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior,
the Secretary of Commerce, and interested congressional committees. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for
our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were
Charles T. Egan, Trish McClure, Maria Vargas, Amy Webbink, and Mary
Welch.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosures - 4:
List of congressional requesters:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Chairman:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Lincoln Chafee:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Richard W. Pombo:
Chairman:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Michael D. Crapo:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Harry Reid:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Craig Thomas:
United States Senate:
Enclosure I: Preliminary Findings on Analysis of Endangered Species
Recovery Plans:
Briefing to Congressional Requesters:
February 8, 2006:
Overview:
* Background
* Objectives:
* Scope and Methodology:
* Key Elements in Recovery Plans:
* Time and Cost Estimates to Recover Species
* Appendix I: Delisting Factors:
Background:
558 recovery plans cover 1,049 species (82 percent of 1,272 listed
species). FWS has primary responsibility for most plans/species.
The Endangered Species Act requires each recovery plan to incorporate,
to the maximum extent practicable:
* Site specific management actions,
* Time and cost estimates for completing site specific management
actions, and:
* Recovery criteria.
Site-Specific Management Actions:
* A list of tasks called an implementation schedule, sometimes
augmented by a narrative outline, typically covers the first 5 to 7
years of a plan.
Time and Cost Estimates for Completing Site Specific Management
Actions:
* The duration and cost of tasks are included in the implementation
schedule. Cost are usually calculated by fiscal year. Task duration may
be described as "continuous" to indicate indefinite duration.
Recovery Criteria:
* Measurable criteria for determining when a species is eligible to be
removed from the list. Courts have interpreted the ESA as requiring
recovery criteria to address the five delisting factors (see appendix
I).
Objectives:
For a randomly selected sample of 107 recovery plans, we identify:
1) the extent to which plans include key elements identified in the
Endangered Species Act, and:
2) when species are expected to be recovered and the estimated costs to
do so.
Scope and Methodology:
Randomly selected sample includes:
* 99 recovery plans (covering 192 species) for which either FWS has
primary responsibility or for which the Services share responsibility,
and:
* 8 recovery plans (covering 9 species) for which NMFS has primary
responsibility.
Our analysis is based only on information drawn from recovery plans.
We did not attempt to determine whether or not it was "practicable" to
include the key elements in plans.
Key Elements in Recovery Plans: Site-Specific Management Actions:
* All 107 plans include site-specific management actions but
specificity varies greatly.
* Some plans contain many detailed actions while others contain fewer
high level actions.
* In instances where little is known about the species, the focus of
site specific management actions is often on research and data
gathering.
Key Elements in Recovery Plans: Time and Cost Estimates for Management
Actions:
Of the 107 plans,
* 103 plans had time and cost estimates for carrying out site specific
management actions.
* 4 plans stated it was not practicable to include cost estimates.
Key Elements in Recovery Plans: Recovery Criteria:
Of the 107 plans,
* 5 plans contained recovery criteria that addressed all five delisting
factors.
* 57 plans had some recovery criteria, but did not evidence
consideration of all five delisting factors.
* 23 plans either cover species thought to be extinct or not
recoverable or state why providing recovery criteria was not
practicable.
* 22 do not contain recovery criteria and do not state why providing
recovery criteria was not practicable.
Time Estimates to Recover Species:
Of the 107 plans,
* 73 plans (covering 163 species) did not provide estimates of when the
species are expected to be recovered.
* 34 plans provide time estimates:
* 7 plans (covering 7 species) indicate that the species were expected
to have been recovered by 2005.
* 17 plans (covering 19 species) indicate that the species are expected
to be recovered within the next 10 years.
* 10 plans (covering 12 species) indicate that the species are expected
to be recovered in 10 to 50 years.
Cost Estimates to Recover Species:
Of the 107 plans:
* 87 plans (covering 181 species) do not include cost estimates to
recover species.
* 20 plans (covering 20 species) include cost estimates:
* $15.9 million is the average cost estimate.
* $1.4 million is the median cost estimate.
* $125 million is the highest cost estimate (to recover the Whooping
Crane).
* $58,000 is the lowest cost estimate (to recover the Decurrent False
Aster--a flowering plant in Illinois and Missouri).
Appendix I: Delisting Factors:
In order to be delisted, species must no longer be threatened or
endangered because of the following factors (same as listing factors):
(1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range:
(2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes:
(3) disease or predation:
(4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
(5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence:
[End of slide presentation]
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
MAR 20 2006:
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: Time and Costs Required to
Recover Species Are Largely Unknown," GAO-06-463R, dated February 23,
2006.
Although we agree in general with the findings and the recommendations,
given the short time frame for responding to this report, we were not
able to verify the information presented concerning the recovery plans.
Therefore, we are not providing detailed substantive comments. Instead,
the focus of our response is on the recommendations.
The enclosure provides the actions that are planned by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to implement the recommendations. We hope our
response will assist you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signature illegible:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
Enclosure:
Enclosure:
U.S. Government Accountability Office Draft Report "Endangered Species:
Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are Largely Unknown," GAO-
06-463R:
Specific Comments:
1) On page 2 - "As of February 2006, the Services had approved about
560 recovery plans covering about 1,050 species." Please clarify that
the recovery plans referred to in this sentence are those that are
final recovery plans.
2) On page 5, "Of the 34 plans that provide a time estimate, 7 plans
indicate that the species were expected to have been recovered by 2005;
the remaining plans indicate that the species are expected to be
recovered in the next 50 years." This statement should be clarified,
perhaps with a footnote, that (a) the date that the 7 plans were
written; and (b) explain that the estimates contained in the recovery
plans are premised on the assumption that the partners and resources
needed to fully implement the plan are available.
GAO's Recommendations:
1. "To facilitate measuring the success of the Endangered Species Act
and provide policy makers with valuable information for identifying
resource needs, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and
Commerce direct the Services to report estimates of the time and cost
to recover species in a single location that is easily accessible by
the Congress and the public, for example, in the biennial recovery
reports to Congress."
Response: Concur. The Service plans to add a column in the current
table of the Recovery Report to Congress that will include general
estimates of the amount of time and cost to recover a species. These
will be included for those species that have the information currently
included in recovery plans. If this information is not available in the
recovery plan, the Service will indicate so in the table and include
the new information once the recovery plan has undergone a formal
revision.
Title of Responsible Official: Assistant Director - Endangered Species:
Target Date: Recovery Report to Congress, 2006:
2. "To accomplish that task, we recommend (1) that the Secretary of
Commerce direct the National Marine Fisheries Service to include in its
recovery planning guidance direction that time estimates for species
recovery, however broad, be included in new and revised recovery plans
and (2) that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Fish and Wildlife
Service to implement its current recovery planning guidance that states
that recovery plans should estimate the overall time and cost to
recover species."
Response: Concur with (2). The Service plans to develop guidance that
further clarifies how to implement the current 1990 guidance.
Title of Responsible Official: Assistant Director - Endangered Species:
Target Date: September, 2007:
3. "To meet the Endangered Species Act's requirement that recovery
plans, to the maximum extent practicable, include recovery criteria,
and to not expose the Services to a higher than necessary risk of
litigation and their attendant costs, we recommend that the Secretaries
of the Interior and Commerce direct the Services to include in recovery
planning guidance direction that all new and revised recovery plans
have either recovery criteria evidencing consideration of all five
delisting factors or a statement as to why it is not practicable to do
so."
Response: Concur with direction to the Department of the Interior. The
Service plans to develop guidance or policy illustrating the need to
develop recovery criteria in recovery plans that consider all five of
the delisting factors.
Title of Responsible Official: Assistant Director - Endangered Species:
Target Date: December, 2006:
Enclosure III:
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
March 27, 2006:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report entitled Endangered Species: Time
and Cost Required to Recover Species Are Largely Unknown (GAO-06-463R).
I enclose the Department of Commerce's comments on this draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David A. Sampson:
Department of Commerce Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled
"Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are
Largely Unknown" (GAO-06-463R/March 2006):
General Comments:
The Department of Commerce (DOC) appreciates the opportunity to review
this report. We generally concur with your findings, although we
believe that limiting the report to whether or not recovery plans
include the three key elements specified in the Endangered Species Act
does not provide adequate information to yield any particular insights
into the success or failure of the Act. We look forward to the second
phase of this review in which GAO plans to take a closer look at "the
factors affecting the length of recovery and the role that recovery
plans have played in the species' progress toward recovery."
DOC also appreciates GAO's acknowledgement that the majority of the
plans reviewed include recovery criteria, even if these criteria do not
address all five listing factors. We would note, however, these
criteria were considered adequate at the time they were written. More
specifically, prior to the 1995 court case cited by GAO (see footnote,
page 3 of the draft report), addressing the five listing factors in
recovery criteria was not required in National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) guidance, nor was it considered necessary. As indicated on page
4 of the draft report, NMFS's 2004 recovery plan guidance instructs
plans should address the factors currently relevant to the threats
facing the species [emphasis added]. Thus, older recovery plans are
unlikely to meet the requirement for threats-based recovery criteria,
and even relatively recent recovery plans may not include all 5 listing
factors if they were not considered relevant.
DOC Response to GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: "We recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior
and Commerce direct the Services to report estimates of the time and
cost to recover species in a single location that is easily accessible
by the Congress and the public, for example, in the biennial recovery
reports to Congress."
DOC Response: DOC agrees with this recommendation and will incorporate
such estimates in future biennial reports for all species that have
recovery plans.
Recommendation 2: "To accomplish [recommendation #I], we recommend..
that the Secretary of Commerce direct the National Marine Fisheries
Service to include in its recovery planning guidance direction that
time estimates for species recovery, however broad, be included in new
and revised recovery plans."
DOC Response: DOC agrees with this recommendation and notes NMFS's 2004
interim recovery planning guidance already includes such direction. Our
guidance states the authors of recovery plans should "indicate the
anticipated year all recovery criteria could be met if all actions were
fully funded at the indicated levels" (guidance, p. 5.1-4, second
column). The guidance also notes the implementation schedule satisfies
the requirement that recovery plans contain "estimates of the time
required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the
plan's goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal" (p. 5.1-
26, first paragraph). We do recognize, however, the instruction in the
implementation schedule portion of the guidance could be more explicit
with regard to time estimates. We have noted changes to this effect
should be made in the next draft of the guidance; and, consistent with
such guidance, we will ensure future recovery plans include estimates
for both time and cost to recovery.
Recommendation 3: "To meet the Endangered Species Act's requirement
that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, include
recovery criteria, and to not expose the Services to a higher than
necessary risk of litigation and their attendant costs, we recommend
that the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce direct the Services
to include in recovery planning guidance direction that all new and
revised recovery plans have either recovery criteria evidencing
consideration of all five delisting factors or a statement as to why it
is not practicable to do so."
DOC Response: DOC agrees to adopt this recommendation, although we do
not believe it is necessary. NMFS recovery plans typically consider
only those listing factors relevant to the species' listing, plus any
additional threats that became relevant after the listing rule. We
believe this practice is consistent with recent court rulings and does
not constitute a legal vulnerability. However, explicitly including a
discussion of each listing factor, even those that are not relevant, is
not unduly burdensome. Therefore, to avoid any potential confusion on
this matter, DOC/NMFS will adopt this recommendation.
Recovery plans will continue to focus on identifying and alleviating
those threats and listing factors that are relevant to the recovery
objectives for a particular species. For each listing factor that is
not relevant to a particular species, NMFS will simply cite the listing
factor, briefly explain why it is not relevant to the species, and note
that the listing factor is not considered in detail in the recovery
plan. NMFS will not include recovery criteria for those listing factors
that are not relevant for a listed species.
[End of section]
Enclosure IV: Scope and Methodology:
We identified the 107 recovery plans we reviewed by randomly selecting
a probability sample of 99 recovery plans from the 580 plans either for
which the Fish and Wildlife Service has primary responsibility or for
which it shares responsibility with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS).[Footnote 11] In addition, we included all eight
recovery plans for which NMFS has primary responsibility. We then
determined the plans' time and cost estimates and the extent to which
they contain key elements based on information contained in the plans.
For the purposes of this report, we only evaluated whether the key
elements were present in the recovery plans and did not make any
determinations regarding whether a recovery plan met or failed to meet
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(360574):
FOOTNOTES
[1] In 2002 and 2003, we reported that litigation relating to the Fish
and Wildlife Service's critical habitat program consumes significant
program resources. Courts remanded a number of these cases to FWS for
reconsideration of critical habitat designations; consequently, FWS
redesignated critical habitat for numerous species. At the time, we
recommended that FWS expedite its efforts to develop guidance on
designating critical habitat to reduce its exposure to future
litigation. See GAO, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses
Best Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional
Guidance Needed for Critical Habitat Designations, GAO-03-803
(Washington, D.C: Aug. 29, 2003); and Endangered Species Program:
Information on How Funds Are Allocated and What Activities Are
Emphasized, GAO-02-581 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002).
[2] The act requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to
implement these responsibilities; the Secretaries have delegated
implementation authority to FWS and NMFS. FWS has primary
responsibility for fresh water and land species, while NMFS has primary
responsibility for anadromous fish and most marine species.
[3] A recovery plan is not required if the Secretary of the Interior or
the Secretary of Commerce finds that such a plan will not promote the
conservation of the species.
[4] See Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C.
2001); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995). In
Defenders of Wildlife, the court remanded the recovery plan to FWS to
incorporate delisting criteria or to provide an adequate explanation
regarding why delisting criteria could not practicably be incorporated.
In Fund for Animals, the court remanded the plan back to FWS for
revision of the recovery criteria.
[5] U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Policy
and Guidelines for Planning and Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and
Threatened Species (May 25, 1990).
[6] National Marine Fisheries Service, Interim Endangered and
Threatened Species Recovery Planning Guidance, (October 2004).
[7] In practice, the reports provide status information on all listed
species, regardless of whether they have a recovery plan or not.
[8] The FWS reports that estimates contained in recovery plans are
premised on the assumption that the partners and resources needed to
fully implement the plans are available.
[9] In a number of instances, we found that task duration was described
as "continuous." In Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp. 2d
121 (D.D.C. 2001), the court made note of a number of tasks in the
recovery plan for the Sonoran pronghorn that were described as ongoing
but that did not appear to be of indefinite duration. The court
remanded the recovery plan to FWS to provide time estimates where
practicable.
[10] Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995). See
also Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C.
2001).
[11] We selected our sample of recovery plans in June 2005 and included
in our universe the final and draft plans available at that time.
