Endangered Species
Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species Gao ID: GAO-06-730 September 6, 2006The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the services) are responsible for administration and implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The act generally requires the services to develop recovery plans for endangered and threatened species--species facing extinction or likely to face extinction, respectively. Recovery plans identify threats to the species' survival and the actions needed to mitigate those threats. Proposed amendments to the act are under consideration and GAO was asked to provide information to facilitate this effort. In April 2006, GAO issued a report providing high-level information on the extent to which recovery plans contain estimates of when species are expected to be recovered, among other things. This follow-on report provides more detailed information on the factors that affect species recovery and the importance of recovery plans in recovery efforts. For 31 species--selected because they were nearing recovery, or had significant attention devoted to them and thus would be expected to be making progress towards recovery--GAO (1) identifies factors affecting the length of time to recover the species and (2) describes the role recovery plans have played in recovering these species. The Department of the Interior agreed with the facts presented in this report. The Department of Commerce declined to comment.
Many factors affect the length of time it takes to recover the 31 species GAO reviewed. Specifically, 19 of these species have been recently delisted (removed from the list of endangered and threatened species) or are likely to be delisted within the next 25 years either because (1) they faced a primary threat that has been or is being mitigated; (2) they were found to be more prevalent than biologists thought at the time they were listed and/or habitats have been secured for the species; or (3) they are expected to respond relatively quickly to recovery efforts because, for example, they reproduce quickly in the presence of good habitat. The remaining 12 species are much farther away from being delisted, and for some, recovery is uncertain. Some of these species are not expected to recover for many decades because they respond relatively slowly to recovery efforts, for example, because they reproduce slowly. Recovery for the remaining species is uncertain either because their habitat is difficult to protect, or because not enough is known about the threats facing the species or how to mitigate those threats. Recovery plans have played an important role in the recovery efforts of nearly all of the species GAO reviewed by identifying many of the actions the services' biologists deemed most important to the species' recovery. The services' biologists report that these actions have contributed, at least in part, to the progress made in recovering these species. For example, recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker is dependent on having sufficient habitat--the species nests in cavities that they peck out of old pine trees, but logging largely eliminated these trees from the woodpecker's range. The recovery plan identifies measures to protect the habitat, including land acquisition and conservation agreements with landowners, as well as steps to provide artificial nest boxes until pines mature enough to provide natural habitat for the birds. The services' biologists told us that these actions have significantly improved this species' prospects for recovery. However, for about one-half of the species GAO reviewed, actions beyond those in the recovery plans also played an important role in progress toward the species' recovery. For example, the banning of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972--a year before the Endangered Species Act was enacted--has been critical to recovery of the bald eagle.
GAO-06-730, Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-730
entitled 'Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to
Recover Select Species' which was released on September 8, 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
September 2006:
Endangered Species:
Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species:
GAO-06-730:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-730, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (the services) are responsible for administration and
implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The act generally
requires the services to develop recovery plans for endangered and
threatened species”species facing extinction or likely to face
extinction, respectively. Recovery plans identify threats to the
species‘ survival and the actions needed to mitigate those threats.
Proposed amendments to the act are under consideration and GAO was
asked to provide information to facilitate this effort. In April 2006,
GAO issued a report providing high-level information on the extent to
which recovery plans contain estimates of when species are expected to
be recovered, among other things. This follow-on report provides more
detailed information on the factors that affect species recovery and
the importance of recovery plans in recovery efforts. For 31
species”selected because they were nearing recovery, or had significant
attention devoted to them and thus would be expected to be making
progress towards recovery”GAO (1) identifies factors affecting the
length of time to recover the species and (2) describes the role
recovery plans have played in recovering these species. The Department
of the Interior agreed with the facts presented in this report. The
Department of Commerce declined to comment.
What GAO Found:
Many factors affect the length of time it takes to recover the 31
species GAO reviewed. Specifically, 19 of these species have been
recently delisted (removed from the list of endangered and threatened
species) or are likely to be delisted within the next 25 years either
because (1) they faced a primary threat that has been or is being
mitigated; (2) they were found to be more prevalent than biologists
thought at the time they were listed and/or habitats have been secured
for the species; or (3) they are expected to respond relatively quickly
to recovery efforts because, for example, they reproduce quickly in the
presence of good habitat. The remaining 12 species are much farther
away from being delisted, and for some, recovery is uncertain. Some of
these species are not expected to recover for many decades because they
respond relatively slowly to recovery efforts, for example, because
they reproduce slowly. Recovery for the remaining species is uncertain
either because their habitat is difficult to protect, or because not
enough is known about the threats facing the species or how to mitigate
those threats.
Recovery plans have played an important role in the recovery efforts of
nearly all of the species GAO reviewed by identifying many of the
actions the services‘ biologists deemed most important to the species‘
recovery. The services‘ biologists report that these actions have
contributed, at least in part, to the progress made in recovering these
species. For example, recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker is
dependent on having sufficient habitat”the species nests in cavities
that they peck out of old pine trees, but logging largely eliminated
these trees from the woodpecker‘s range. The recovery plan identifies
measures to protect the habitat, including land acquisition and
conservation agreements with landowners, as well as steps to provide
artificial nest boxes until pines mature enough to provide natural
habitat for the birds. The services‘ biologists told us that these
actions have significantly improved this species‘ prospects for
recovery. However, for about one-half of the species GAO reviewed,
actions beyond those in the recovery plans also played an important
role in progress toward the species‘ recovery. For example, the banning
of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) by the
Environmental Protection Agency in 1972”a year before the Endangered
Species Act was enacted”has been critical to recovery of the bald
eagle.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-730].
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:
Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Certain Threatened
and Endangered Species:
Recovery Plans Play an Important Role in Recovering Certain Threatened
and Endangered Species:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Information on 31 Select Species:
Mammals:
Birds:
Fishes:
Snails:
Insects:
Crustaceans:
Plants:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Tables:
Table 1: Species Facing a Primary Threat That Has Been, or Is Being,
Mitigated:
Table 2: Species More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or Having
Habitat Protections:
Table 3: Species Expected to Respond Relatively Quickly to Extensive
Recovery Efforts:
Table 4: Species Expected to Recover but That Respond Relatively Slowly
to Recovery Efforts:
Table 5: Species for Which Essential Habitat Is Not Protected:
Table 6: Species for Which Key Information Is Lacking:
Table 7: Species Whose Recovery Plans Have Played a Primary Role in the
Species' Progress toward Recovery:
Table 8: Species Whose Recovery Has Been Aided by Both Recovery Plans
and Other Factors:
Table 9: Selection Criteria for Species Included in Our Nonprobability
Sample:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
BOR: Bureau of Reclamation:
DDT: dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane:
DPS: distinct population segments :
FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: :
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service:
September 6, 2006:
Congressional Requesters:
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing extinction
(endangered species) or likely to face extinction in the foreseeable
future (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. Proponents of the act, and what it seeks to
accomplish, believe that it is important to preserve the unique genetic
characteristics of each species as a practical response to the impact
that humans are having on the earth, and may also believe there is a
moral obligation to do so. Some critics of the act deemphasize the
importance of preserving every individual species and argue that doing
so, in many cases, is too costly--especially when implementation of the
act results in restricting uses of public and private land and
resources. Others are critical of the veracity of the data used to make
decisions under the act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as "the services,"
are the federal agencies responsible for administration and
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. FWS has primary
responsibility for fresh water and land species, while NMFS has primary
responsibility for anadromous fish and most marine species. The
Endangered Species Act outlines criteria that the services must apply
to determine whether a species warrants the protection of the act, and
the process to follow to place the species on the list of threatened
and endangered species. The act also generally requires the services to
develop recovery plans for the conservation and survival of listed
species.[Footnote 1]
While the act has many provisions that could be evaluated, one of the
most important measures of its success is the number of species that
have "recovered," or improved to the point that they no longer need the
act's protection. Since the act's inception in 1973, about 1,300
domestic species have been placed on the list of threatened and
endangered species, but only a few have been removed
(delisted).[Footnote 2] Supporters of the act claim it is an indication
of success that only nine species protected by the act have become
extinct. Critics, on the other hand, claim it is an indication of
failure that only 17 species protected by the act have recovered.
Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are under
consideration, and you asked us to provide information on recovery
plans and progress made on their implementation to facilitate this
effort. In an April 2006 report, we provided high-level information on
107 randomly selected recovery plans covering about 200
species.[Footnote 3] We reported on the extent to which these plans
contained estimates of when a species is expected to have recovered,
among other things. In this report, for a nonprobability sample of 31
species, we provide a more in-depth review of the efforts undertaken to
recover species. We selected these species because they are nearing
recovery or had significant attention devoted to them and, thus, would
be expected to be making progress towards recovery. For these 31
species, we (1) identify factors affecting the length of time to
recover the species and (2) describe the role that recovery plans have
played in recovering these species.
FWS is responsible for 28 of the 31 species we reviewed. NMFS is
responsible for the remaining three species--the northern right whale
and two distinct population segments (DPS) of the Steller sea
lion.[Footnote 4] Our assessment of the recovery efforts and
description of the role of recovery plans in those efforts is based
primarily on species' recovery plans, Federal Register notices
associated with the species, and information provided by biologists at
the services that are responsible for recovering the species we
reviewed. We obtained, from FWS and NMFS biologists, estimated time
frames for delisting many of the species we reviewed. It is important
to note that these estimates were based on the assumption that needed
actions would take place, even though funding may not be available to
conduct these actions, or the actions may be out of the services'
control. Consequently, the estimates provided should be considered best-
case scenarios. Salmon, steelhead, and the desert tortoise were
excluded from our analyses because we have issued comprehensive reports
on these species.[Footnote 5] A more detailed description of our scope
and methodology is presented in appendix I. Information on each of the
species we reviewed is presented in appendix II. We performed our work
between September 2005 and August 2006, in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Many factors affect the length of time it will take to recover the 31
species we reviewed, and some may not be recovered at all. These
factors range from the successful removal of the primary threat faced
by a species, to difficulty protecting a species' habitat or difficulty
understanding what threats a species is facing. The length of time it
has taken, or is expected to take, to recover these species, ranges
from less than a decade to possibly more than a century; specifically:
* Nineteen of the thirty-one species have been recently delisted, or
are likely to be delisted, within the next 25 years. Each will likely
spend less than 50 years on the endangered species list. Eight of these
species faced a primary threat that has been or is being mitigated. Six
species are more prevalent than biologists thought at the time they
were listed, and/or FWS has been effective in protecting their
habitats. The other five species are the beneficiaries of recovery
efforts involving a wide range of stakeholders and significant
resources, and are expected to respond relatively quickly to these
efforts.
* The remaining 12 of the 31 species we reviewed are much farther away
from being delisted and could spend more than 50 years on the
endangered species list; for some, recovery is uncertain. The services'
biologists believe that 4 of these 12 species will eventually recover,
but not for many decades, because the species are slow to respond to
recovery efforts--for example, because they reproduce slowly or depend
on habitat that takes a long time to develop. FWS is having difficulty
recovering the remaining eight species: five because they cannot secure
needed habitat, and three because they do not know enough about the
threats facing the species or how to mitigate these threats. FWS cannot
predict whether or when a successful recovery of these eight species
will be possible.
For all but one of the species we reviewed, recovery plans played an
important role in recovery efforts by identifying many of the actions
that the services' biologists deem most important to the recovery of
the species. Although not all of these species are nearing recovery,
the services' biologists report that the success that these species
have had can be attributed, at least in part, to actions in the
species' recovery plans. For example, recovery of the red-cockaded
woodpecker depends on having sufficient habitat--the species nests in
cavities that are pecked out of old pine trees, which logging largely
eliminated from the woodpecker's range. The recovery plan identifies
measures to protect woodpecker habitat, including conservation
agreements with private landowners, as well as steps to provide
artificial nest boxes until pines mature enough to provide natural
habitat for the birds. The services' biologists told us that these
actions have significantly improved this species' prospects for
recovery. However, for about one-half of the species we reviewed, the
services' biologists also identified actions important to the recovery
of the species that were beyond those included in the species' recovery
plans. For example, the banning of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane (DDT) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972
has been critical to recovery of the bald eagle, but was not included
in its recovery plan. One of the species we reviewed, the dwarf-
flowered heartleaf--a small flowering plant found in North Carolina and
South Carolina--does not have a recovery plan because, with new
populations of the species repeatedly being found, information about
the species is changing rapidly. The species may be delisted without a
recovery plan.
We provided the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the
Department of Commerce (Commerce) with a draft of this report for
review and comment. The Department of the Interior generally agreed
with the information presented in the report (see app. III). Commerce
declined to provide an overall assessment of the draft because the
report does not contain recommendations.
Background:
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is to conserve
threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. The act defines conservation as the recovery of threatened and
endangered species so that they no longer need the protective measures
afforded by the act. An endangered species is a species facing
extinction throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range;
threatened species are those likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to
publish, in the Federal Register, a list of species determined to be
threatened or endangered. Included in the definition of species are
subspecies of animals and plants, and DPSs of vertebrate species.
The act generally requires the services to develop recovery plans for
the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species,
unless the services determine that a plan will not promote their
conservation. The act directs the services, to the maximum extent
practicable, to incorporate in each recovery plan (1) a description of
site-specific management actions 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 threatened and endangered
species (i.e., delisted); and (3) estimates of the time and cost
required to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan's goal.
The services develop and implement recovery plans, among other actions,
to reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its long-term
survival. To do this, recovery plans aim to identify threats to the
species' survival and the actions needed to mitigate those threats. A
recovery plan may include a variety of methods and procedures to
recover listed species, such as habitat acquisition and restoration to
prevent extinction or further decline, and other on-the-ground
activities for managing and monitoring endangered and threatened
species. The services' officials also told us that recovery plans are
important for communicating needed actions to other federal agencies,
state and local agencies, researchers, industry, private landowners,
and others, because the services often depend on other entities to
implement recovery actions. For example, in many cases, FWS does not
have jurisdiction to implement recovery actions on lands occupied by
endangered species, which is important because loss of habitat is often
the principal cause of species' declines. Recovery plans can take years
or decades to fully implement, depending on the needs of the species
covered by the plan. As of May 2006, the services had approved 580
recovery plans covering about 1,080 species (or about 83 percent) of
the 1,300 domestic species protected by the act.
Once a species recovers, it can be delisted.[Footnote 6] To determine
that a species is recovered and ready to be delisted, the services
follow a process similar to that used to list a species--they propose
delisting a species in the Federal Register and seek public comment on
the action before they finalize the delisting. The act requires the
services to use the same criteria to delist species that are used to
list species. Specifically, to delist a species, the services must
determine that the species is no longer threatened or endangered based
on an assessment of five factors: (1) whether there is a present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species'
habitat or range; (2) whether the species is subject to overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
whether disease or predation is a factor; (4) whether existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate; and (5) whether other natural and
manmade factors are affecting the species' continued existence.
Besides delisting species because they have recovered, species can also
be delisted if they are found to be extinct, or if the original data
used to list the species is found to be in error. For example, if
additional analysis finds the species is not unique but rather a member
of a more prevalent species, its listing becomes unwarranted. As of May
2006, FWS reports that a total of 41 species have been removed from the
list of threatened and endangered species--9 species because they have
been declared extinct, 15 species because original data used to list
the species was in error, and 17 species as a result of recovery
efforts.[Footnote 7]
In addition, the act requires that the services report biennially to
certain congressional committees on efforts to develop and implement
recovery plans. The services implement this requirement through
separate biennial reports to Congress. FWS's reports satisfy the act's
reporting requirement by including a statistic called "recovery
achieved." The recovery achieved statistic is meant to estimate the
extent to which the recovery objectives for each species have been
achieved and reflects the species' overall progress towards recovery;
it is not the proportion of discrete actions in the recovery plan that
has been completed. It is expressed as a percentage range--0 to 25
percent, 26 to 50 percent, 51 to 75 percent, or 76 to 100 percent. The
FWS report includes this statistic for species under FWS's
jurisdiction, as well as for those managed jointly with NMFS. NMFS's
biennial reports to Congress do not include a recovery achieved
statistic, but rather a narrative description of efforts to implement
recovery plans. Additionally, the act requires FWS to submit an annual
report to Congress on federal expenditures for the conservation of all
endangered or threatened species, as well as expenditures by states
receiving federal financial assistance for such conservation
activities.
Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Certain Threatened
and Endangered Species:
Many factors are responsible for the varying length of time it will
take to recover the 31 species we reviewed. The services' biologists
report that 19 of these species are likely to be delisted within the
next 25 years because (1) the primary threats faced by the species have
been or are being mitigated; (2) the species are more prevalent than
thought at the time they were listed and/or habitat has been secured
for the species; or (3) they are the beneficiaries of extensive
recovery efforts and are expected to respond relatively quickly to
those efforts. In contrast, the remaining 12 species are far from
recovery because (1) they respond slowly to recovery actions; (2) the
services have not been successful in protecting essential habitat; or
(3) there are gaps in knowledge about the threats challenging their
survival, or how to mitigate these threats.
Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Delisted or Likely
to Be Delisted within the Next 25 Years:
Nineteen of the thirty-one species we reviewed have already been
delisted, or are likely to be recovered and delisted within the next 25
years. The services' biologists expect that many will be delisted
within the next 10 years, and all of these species will likely spend
less than 50 years on the endangered species list. Eight of these
species are recovered, or are nearing recovery, and will likely be
delisted in 10 years because they faced primary threats that have been
or are being mitigated. Six of the species are recovered, or are
nearing recovery, and most will likely be delisted within the next 10
years because they are more prevalent than thought at the time they
were listed, and/or key habitat is being protected. The remaining 5 of
the 19 species are expected to recover and be delisted within 25 years,
because they are expected to respond relatively quickly to recovery
efforts involving significant resources and a wide range of
stakeholders.
Primary Threats Have Been, or Are Being, Mitigated for Some Species:
Eight of the species we reviewed are recovered, or are nearing
recovery, because the primary threats facing the species have been, or
are being, mitigated. These species are likely to be delisted within
the next 10 years. The bald eagle is one example. The primary threat to
the eagle's survival was the widespread use of DDT, an insecticide that
caused thin egg shells and reproductive failure. Thus, although there
were other steps that needed to be taken (primarily addressing loss of
important habitat), the banning of DDT in 1972 was critical to
achieving the bald eagle's recovery. FWS reports that the eagle is
recovered and has recently proposed delisting the species. Another
example is the Magazine Mountain shagreen--a land snail found only on
the north side of Magazine Mountain in Arkansas. The primary threat to
this species was human use of its habitat or areas close to its
habitat. Specifically, the Department of Defense considered using
Magazine Mountain for military exercises, and the state of Arkansas
proposed building a visitor's center and related facilities on the
summit of the mountain--the highest peak in the state. After the snail
was listed, however, the Department of Defense withdrew its plans for
military exercises in the area, and the visitor's center and associated
facilities were designed and built so that potential impacts from
construction and operation have been mitigated. FWS biologists told us
that the snail's population is stable, but that a proposed 3-year study
to gather additional biological information about the species needs to
be completed before the species can be proposed for delisting. Table 1
summarizes some key details about the eight species.
Table 1: Species Facing a Primary Threat That Has Been, or Is Being,
Mitigated:
Species name: Bald eagle;
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1967/1978[C];
Proposed for delisting: 1999 and 2006;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: The insecticide
DDT causes reproductive failure in bald eagles. This threat was
mitigated when the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 1972.
Habitat protections and guidance to avoid disturbing nesting sites have
also helped. FWS proposed delisting the eagle in 1999;
however, action was delayed because of legal concerns. FWS reinitiated
the process to delist the bald eagle in February 2006.
Species name: Borax Lake chub (fish);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1980;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: The primary
threats were geothermal development, and shoreline alteration due to
grazing. Legislation prevented geothermal development and land
acquisition is protecting shoreline.
Species name: Columbian white-tailed deer--Douglas County DPS[D];
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1967;
Delisted: 2003;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: Habitat
protection via land acquisition and hunting restrictions were critical
to the deer's recovery and subsequent delisting in July 2003.
Species name: Gray wolf--western Great Lakes recovery population;
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1967;
Proposed for delisting: 2006;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: Human predation
was the primary threat facing the gray wolf;
for instance, wolves were frequently killed by farmers to protect their
livestock from predation. Programs that removed livestock-killing
wolves, and compensated farmers who lost livestock to wolves, helped
reduce this practice. Delisting has been delayed due to legal questions
about how to delist this population, since all gray wolves are
currently listed as a single entity rather than as distinct population
segments.
Species name: Papery whitlow-wort--central Florida subspecies (plant);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1987;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: Habitat has been
protected and restored through land acquisition and management
activities.
Species name: Steller sea lion--eastern DPS[D];
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1990;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: The killing of
Steller sea lions by humans (for example, to protect fishing gear or to
reduce population numbers) was a major threat that has been prohibited.
Species name: Magazine Mountain shagreen (land snail);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1989;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: Two planned
actions that could have affected the species' habitat were withdrawn or
mitigated.
Species name: Virginia round-leaf birch (tree);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A, B]: Listed:
1978;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015;
Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated: Helping
propagation of seedlings in the wild and protecting them until they
could withstand herbivory helped ensure the species' survival.
Additionally, distributing seedlings to the public helped reduce
illegal collecting.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
[A] Target time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery
actions are taken. However, many factors, including availability of
funding, cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and
responsiveness of the species, may render these time frames
unattainable or obsolete. We present estimates in 5-year increments.
[B] Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered
Species Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of
threatened and endangered species under the 1973 act.
[C] The bald eagle was first listed in 1967, but the listing only
applied to bald eagles in southern states. FWS later determined that
there was no morphological or geographical basis to distinguish
northern and southern eagles and extended protection to all bald eagles
in the 48 conterminous states in 1978.
[D] A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes
of listing, is treated as a species under the Endangered Species Act.
[End of table]
Almost all of the eight species nearing recovery due to mitigation of a
primary threat were included in the sample of species we reviewed
because, among other reasons, in FWS's fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery
report to Congress, these species were reported to have achieved 76 to
100 percent of their recovery. The one exception is the Steller sea
lion, which we selected because there was a relatively high level of
federal and state expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal
year 2003. (NMFS does not report a recovery achieved statistic for
species for which it is responsible.)
Some Species Are More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or the
Species' Habitat Is Being Protected:
Six of the species we reviewed have recovered, or are nearing recovery,
because they are more prevalent than thought when listed, and/or FWS
has been successful in protecting important habitat. The services'
biologists expect that all but one of these species will be delisted
within the next 10 years. After a species is listed, it typically
receives more attention; sometimes this attention comes in the form of
additional funding to survey for the species, which can lead to finding
additional individuals or populations. The Uncompahgre fritillary
butterfly is an example of a species where the discovery of additional
populations, coupled with management actions to protect those
populations, could result in the species being delisted within the next
6 years. When the butterfly was listed in 1991, there were only two
known colonies and a few individual butterflies that had been located
at two other sites. However, since that time, monitoring has uncovered
nine additional colonies. Habitat protections, such as prohibitions on
collecting all types of butterflies in key habitat areas, have also
helped this species. FWS biologists believe that the species is nearing
recovery but, as some of the colonies were only discovered between 4
and 5 years ago, additional monitoring is needed. The recovery plan
calls for population levels to have remained stable for 10 years before
the species is considered recovered.
Besides finding additional populations, sometimes a species is
determined to be more abundant than originally thought because of
changes to how the species is taxonomically classified. For example,
the Truckee barberry, a small evergreen shrub found in California, was
delisted after it was reclassified and included as part of a more
common species that is not threatened or endangered. Table 2 summarizes
some key details for these six species.
Table 2: Species More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or Having
Habitat Protections:
Species name: Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (plant);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A]: Listed:
1989;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015;
Prevalence and habitat protection factors: Additional populations were
discovered, but some habitat still needs protection.
Species name: Eggert's sunflower (plant);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A]: Listed:
1997;
Delisted: 2005;
Prevalence and habitat protection factors: Additional populations were
discovered, and FWS secured conservation agreements from public and
private landowners to protect and restore habitat. Protective actions
include burning, mowing, or thinning plants that compete with the
species.
Species name: Johnston's frankenia (plant);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A]: Listed:
1984;
Proposed for delisting: 2003;
Anticipated to be delisted: 2006;
Prevalence and habitat protection factors: Landowners initially
resisted requests to survey for the species but eventually
reconsidered;
additional populations were subsequently discovered. Conservation
agreements with private landowners now protect the species' habitat.
Species name: Truckee barberry (plant);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A]: Listed:
1979;
Delisted: 2003;
Prevalence and habitat protection factors: At the time of listing, it
was not clear how the Truckee barberry was related to other species.
Taxonomic analyses later determined that this species is the same as
another much more prevalent species.
Species name: Uinta Basin hookless cactus;
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A]: Listed:
1979;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2025;
Prevalence and habitat protection factors: The species is more
prevalent than originally thought, but still needs habitat protections.
Species name: Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly;
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A]: Listed:
1991;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015;
Prevalence and habitat protection factors: Additional populations were
discovered, and populations on federal land have been protected by
eliminating species collection and reducing access to species habitat.
Source: FWS.
[A] Target time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery
actions are taken. However, many factors, including availability of
funding, cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and
responsiveness of the species, may render these time frames
unattainable or obsolete. We present estimates in 5-year increments.
[End of table]
As with the species in table 1, all of the six species that are nearing
recovery because they are more prevalent (and/or because their habitat
has been protected) were included in our sample because they were
reported to have 76 to 100 percent of their recovery achieved in FWS's
fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery report to Congress.
Some Species Are Likely to Respond Quickly to Recovery Efforts:
Five of the species we reviewed are likely to be recovered within the
next 25 years, because they are expected to respond relatively quickly
to focused recovery efforts with many stakeholders and significant
resources. For example, the Rio Grande silvery minnow, a fish that
rarely exceeds 4 inches, was historically found in the Rio Grande and
Pecos Rivers. However, habitat degradation restricted the fish to 5
percent of its historic range, all in the Rio Grande. To recover the
minnow and other endangered species in the area (including the
southwestern willow flycatcher, which is also reviewed in this report),
the river is being restored to a more natural state. The restoration
will transform the deeply channeled river with high banks that isolate
the river from the surrounding floodplain to a more gently flowing
river with broader, lower banks that will provide eddies and slack
water for juvenile minnows. To achieve this, a myriad of property
owners and water-rights interests must be coordinated. Specifically,
the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program--a
broad coalition of federal, tribal, and local governments; property
owners; and others--is leading efforts to restore the river. Efforts
are underway to physically manipulate the river banks, and the Bureau
of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are manipulating
the river's flow to create floods that reconnect the river with the
surrounding floodplain. FWS is introducing captively-bred minnows to
increase the population size. FWS biologists report that manipulating
the river's flow regime is an effective way to create habitat, and that
minnow populations increase rapidly when provided with good habitat.
Table 3 summarizes some key details about the minnow and four other
species that are responding quickly, or expected to respond quickly, to
recovery actions.
Table 3: Species Expected to Respond Relatively Quickly to Extensive
Recovery Efforts:
Species name: Colorado pikeminnow (fish);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A,B]: Listed:
1967;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015;
Stakeholder involvement and resource investment: This extensive
recovery program involves significant resources (about $200 million
since 1989 on the pikeminnow and other species) and a large number of
partners--including federal and state agencies, tribes, and private
sector entities. Key actions include providing water to ensure adequate
flows, and controlling introductions of nonnative recreational fish
species that compete with and prey on the pikeminnow. The effort to
recover the pikeminnow is part of a larger effort that includes three
other fish species including the razorback sucker, which is also
profiled in this report. Because the species breeds annually,
biologists believe that successful implementation of recovery actions
would result in the species recovering relatively quickly.
Species name: Razorback sucker (fish);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A,B]: Listed:
1991;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2025;
Stakeholder involvement and resource investment: This extensive
recovery program involves significant resources (about $200 million
since 1989 on the razorback sucker and other species) and a large
number of partners--including federal and state agencies, tribes, and
private entities. Key actions include land acquisition of floodplain
habitat and controlling introductions of nonnative recreational fish
species that compete with and prey on the sucker. The effort to recover
the sucker is part of a larger effort focused on it and three other
fish, including the Colorado pikeminnow, which is also profiled in this
report. Because the species breeds annually, biologists believe that
successful implementation of recovery actions would result in the
species recovering relatively quickly.
Species name: Rio Grande silvery minnow;
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A,B]: Listed:
1994;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2030;
Stakeholder involvement and resource investment: This extensive
recovery program involves significant resources (about $45 million
since 2001) and a large number of partners--including state and local
agencies, and private landowners. Key actions include creating needed
habitat and introducing captively-bred minnows. Habitat can be created
relatively quickly and populations can increase rapidly in the presence
of good habitat.
Species name: Southwestern willow flycatcher (bird);
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A,B]: Listed:
1995;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2025;
Stakeholder involvement and resource investment: A large number of
stakeholders were involved in developing the recovery plan for the
species, and this has resulted in wide support for the species. The
species' biology also helps with recovery, as it uses a variety of
habitats that are easy to establish and become available to the species
quickly. The species also reproduces annually. About $40 million has
been spent since 1995 developing the recovery plan and implementing
recovery actions.
Species name: Steller sea lion--western DPS[C];
Year species was listed and target delisting time frame[A,B]: Listed:
1990;
Anticipated to be delisted: by 2030;
Stakeholder involvement and resource investment: This is an extensive
recovery program involving significant resource investment (over $167
million since 1992, including efforts to recover the eastern DPS).
Actions taken include extensive research, closures of fishery areas,
and reductions in disturbances at breeding sites. Although uncertainty
exists about the cause of both the decline and increase in sea lion
populations, the annual growth rate of the western DPS reached target
levels of 3 percent in 2000 and NMFS biologists believe this trend will
continue.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
[A] Target time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery
actions are taken. However, many factors, including availability of
funding, cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and
responsiveness of the species, may render these time frames
unattainable or obsolete. We present estimates in 5-year increments.
[B] Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered
Species Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of
threatened and endangered species under the 1973 act.
[C] A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for the
purposes of listing under the Endangered Species Act, is treated as a
species.
[End of table]
In contrast to the species in tables 1 and 2, these species were
included in our sample primarily because there was a relatively high
level of federal and state expenditures on the species as reported for
fiscal year 2003. None of the four for which FWS is responsible were
reported to have 76 to 100 percent of their recovery achieved in FWS's
fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery report to Congress.
Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Likely Far from
Recovery:
The recovery efforts for 12 of the 31 species we reviewed are far from
complete, and the outcome for some is uncertain. These species are
likely to spend at least 50 years on the endangered species list, some
significantly longer than that. The services' biologists believe that
four of these species will likely recover, but not for many decades--
they respond slowly to recovery efforts. An additional five species are
far from recovery because FWS is unable to protect habitat necessary
for the species' recovery. For the three remaining species, not enough
is known about the threats they face, or how to mitigate those threats,
to predict whether or when a successful recovery is possible.
Some Species Respond Slowly to Recovery Efforts:
For four species we reviewed, recovery efforts are far from complete
because the species respond slowly to these efforts. For example, the
species may have a relatively low reproductive rate; alternatively, it
may depend on habitat that takes a long time to develop to the point
that it is useful to the species. Although the services' biologists are
optimistic that these four species will eventually recover, they do not
believe this will occur in the foreseeable future. For example, NMFS
biologists expect the northern right whale to recover eventually, but
not for many decades. This whale population was brought to extremely
low levels by commercial whaling. Although an international agreement
has protected the northern right whale from commercial whaling
worldwide since 1935, populations remain extremely depleted--the
current population estimate is about 300 individuals. The main threat
the whale still faces is human-caused mortality by fishing gear
entanglement and collisions with ships. NMFS biologists believe the
right whale has a high potential for recovery because the threats to
the species are known and can be addressed--actions are being
implemented that have reduced mortality associated with fishing gear
and ships. However, NMFS biologists also believe it will take a long
time for the whale to recover because of its very low population and
slow reproduction. Table 4 summarizes some key details for these four
species.
Table 4: Species Expected to Recover but That Respond Relatively Slowly
to Recovery Efforts:
Species name: Northern right whale (north Atlantic population);
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1970;
Reason for relatively slow recovery: This species lives up to 70 years
and reproduces infrequently--once every 3 to 5 years. Commercial
whaling severely depleted the population (the current population is
only about 300 individuals). Extensive efforts are being taken to
reduce whale injuries and mortalities caused by fishing gear
entanglement and ship strikes, but the species' low reproductive rate
and small population will require a long recovery period.
Species name: Red-cockaded woodpecker;
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1970;
Reason for relatively slow recovery: The species depends on habitat
that was nearly eliminated and takes a long time to develop. It also
has very selective nesting behavior. It pecks out cavities in old pine
trees, and creating a suitable nest cavity can take a decade. However,
much of the pine forests in the woodpeckers' habitat have been logged
and adversely affected by fire suppression and other activities. As a
result, it will be decades before these forests develop to the point
that they can be used by the species, and it could take more than 70
years for the species to be delisted.
Species name: West Indian manatee (Florida population);
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1967;
Reason for relatively slow recovery: Significant efforts to reduce
human-caused mortality (such as from collisions with boats) are having
a positive effect, but manatees remain extremely vulnerable to
mortality due to a lack of warm-water wintering sites. Manatees
historically relied on warm water from natural springs, but these are
becoming scarce. As a result, many manatees rely on industrial
discharges such as cooling water discharges from power plants. However,
the reliability of these sources is unpredictable and loss of even one
site (such as for maintenance or an emergency) can cause hundreds of
manatee deaths. The Florida manatee population is increasing slightly,
but uncertainty over the availability of warm-water wintering sites,
coupled with the manatee's tendency to return to the same winter sites
year after year, means the species' recovery is still many decades
away.
Species name: Whooping crane;
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1967;
Reason for relatively slow recovery: Extensive efforts to breed the
crane in captivity and reintroduce it into the wild have been
relatively successful, but the species will take a long time to recover
because the population size fell to a very small number;
the species reproduces slowly;
and it continues to face threats on its migration routes.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
[A] Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered
Species Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of
threatened and endangered species under the 1973 act.
[End of table]
These four species were included in our sample primarily because of the
relatively high level of federal and state expenditures on the species
as reported for fiscal year 2003. The two species for which FWS is
responsible were reported as having between 0 and 50 percent of their
recovery achieved in the 2001-2002 recovery report to Congress.
Some Species' Habitats Are Difficult to Protect:
Recovery efforts for five of the species we reviewed are far from
complete because FWS is unable to protect the habitat necessary to
recover these species. For example, the recovery plan for the Florida
panther calls for three viable, self-sustaining populations--which must
each include at least 240 panthers to maintain genetic diversity.
However, as of 2005, there is currently only one population estimated
at 76 panthers; its genetic diversity is being augmented by a closely
related subspecies found in Texas. The habitat this small population
currently relies on is at its carrying capacity and is declining by
about one percent per year because of housing and citrus development.
FWS biologists report that, although it is biologically feasible to
recover the panther, they do not believe it is likely this will occur
because of the lack of public support for expanding the current
population and establishing additional populations--actions that rely
on additional suitable habitat being available to the panther. The lack
of public support stems largely from fears of the animal and predation
on livestock and pets.
The Socorro isopod, a one-fourth-inch long member of the crustacean
family, is another example of FWS being unable to protect the habitat
necessary to recover a species, but for a different reason than that of
the Florida panther. The only wild population of isopods is found in
New Mexico, and lives in the pipes of an abandoned bathhouse that was
built to take advantage of the natural hot spring the species
historically relied on. The bathhouse and the water rights to the
spring that feeds the bathhouse are privately owned. The recovery plan
for the isopod calls for an agreement with the property owner to
protect the species--either an easement, lease, or outright purchase of
the property. However, FWS biologists told us that the property owner
has not consented to such an agreement, although he has taken some
actions to protect the species, such as repairing a fence surrounding
the bathhouse that helps protect it from vandals. However, without the
property owner's cooperation, FWS cannot secure the habitat essential
to ensure the survival of the species and thus delist it. Table 5
summarizes some key details for these five species.
Table 5: Species for Which Essential Habitat Is Not Protected:
Species name: Ash Meadows sunray (plant);
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1985;
Habitat protection needed: The primary threat at the time of listing
was development of its unique habitat--a desert wetland in Nevada. This
threat was partially mitigated through land acquisition, but the area
remains vulnerable to mineral extraction.
Species name: Black-footed ferret;
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1967;
Habitat protection needed: Ferrets rely on prairie dog colonies for
habitat and on prairie dogs for food. However, strong public opposition
to prairie dogs prevents the establishment of sufficient prairie dog
populations to support recovery of the ferret. In addition, disease
threatens the prairie dogs and the ferret.
Species name: Florida panther;
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1967;
Habitat protection needed: Development continues to reduce the size of
already insufficient habitat for the panther, and there is public
opposition to establishing additional populations in other locations.
Species name: Papery whitlow-wort--Florida panhandle subspecies
(plant);
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1987;
Habitat protection needed: The primary threat to the species is habitat
loss through residential, industrial, and commercial development. Land
management activities and habitat protections, including land
acquisition, are needed. However, funds have not yet been available to
fully implement recovery actions.
Species name: Socorro isopod (crustacean);
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1978;
Habitat protection needed: Water rights to the spring supporting the
only wild population are privately owned.
Source: FWS.
[A] Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered
Species Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of
threatened and endangered species under the 1973 act.
[End of table]
The Florida panther and the black-footed ferret were included in our
sample because there was a relatively high level of federal and state
expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003, and each
species had at least one full-time staff member dedicated to its
recovery. The other three species--the Ash Meadows sunray, the papery
whitlow-wort, and the Socorro isopod--were included in our sample
because FWS reported them as having between 76 and 100 percent of their
recovery achieved in the fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery report to
Congress; however, as discussed above, it is unclear when these species
will be delisted.
Key Information Is Lacking about the Threats Some Species Face:
FWS cannot predict whether or when a successful recovery is possible
for the remaining three species we reviewed because it does not know
enough about the threats facing the species, or how to mitigate those
threats. These three species could spend more than 50 years on the
endangered species list. The Indiana bat is one example. This species
has been found throughout much of the eastern United States. The bats
winter in caves or mines, called hibernacula, that satisfy their highly
specific need for cold (but not freezing) temperatures during
hibernation. The fact that they hibernate in a relatively small number
of caves suggests that very few caves meet their habitat requirements.
FWS biologists originally thought that the only major threat to the bat
was anthropomorphic changes to its hibernacula. For example, gates
installed to control human access to caves have been documented as
major causes of Indiana bat declines because they prevent bat access or
do not allow proper air flow; human disturbances in caves with
hibernating bats have also been found to adversely affect the species.
Yet despite actions to protect the hibernacula and remove these
threats, population levels have not rebounded, suggesting that the
species faces additional threats when not hibernating. The additional
threats are not well known because the species is difficult to study--
it is nocturnal, widely dispersed during the summer, and roosts in
trees with exfoliating bark. This latter point is problematic because
climbing these trees (for example, to conduct studies on the species)
could destroy the habitat. Table 6 summarizes some key details for
these three species.
Table 6: Species for Which Key Information Is Lacking:
Species name: Ash Meadows gumplant (plant);
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1985;
Key information gap: An invasive species may threaten the gumplant and
FWS biologists do not know how to remove it from the gumplant's
habitat.
Species name: Indiana bat;
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1967;
Key information gap: Unknown threats to the bat are suspected during
summer months. A revised recovery plan is being drafted that will
include recovery actions to address this information gap.
Species name: Spring-loving centaury (plant);
Year species was listed[A]: Listed: 1985;
Key information gap: An invasive species may threaten the centaury and
FWS biologists do not know how to remove it from the centaury's
habitat.
Source: FWS.
[A] Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered
Species Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of
threatened and endangered species under the 1973 act.
[End of table]
We included the Ash Meadows gumplant and the Spring-loving centaury in
our sample because they were reported to have 76 to 100 percent of
their recovery achieved in the fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery report to
Congress. However, FWS biologists believe that a recently identified
threat to these two species may result in the recovery-achieved
statistic for these species being lowered in the next recovery report
to Congress. The third species--the Indiana bat--was included in our
sample because of the relatively high level of federal and state
expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003.
Recovery Plans Play an Important Role in Recovering Certain Threatened
and Endangered Species:
We found that recovery plans have played an important role in the
recovery efforts of all but one of the 31 species we reviewed. More
specifically, for 13 of the species, biologists report that the
recovery plan contains key actions needed to achieve progress in
recovering the species. Although not all of these species are nearing
recovery, the services' biologists report that the success that these
species have had can be attributed, in large part, to implementation of
actions in the species' recovery plans. For an additional 17 species,
biologists report that, although recovery plans have played an
important role in the species' progress toward recovery, events
unrelated to the plan have also had a critical impact on recovery
progress. In some cases, historic and legal events outside the purview
of the recovery plan--such as the banning of DDT, which set the stage
for the bald eagle's recovery--have been critical to the species
recovery. For some species, the discovery of new populations has played
an important role in their recovery, although monitoring for additional
populations is often a recovery-plan activity. Finally, one species--
the dwarf-flowered heartleaf--does not have a recovery plan, and may
not need one. FWS biologists report that information about this species
is changing rapidly as new and larger populations are being identified.
FWS has considered delisting this species, but some stakeholders raised
concerns about development threats in the species' habitat. The
species' status is currently undergoing a review, and it may be
possible to delist it without having a recovery plan.[Footnote 8]
Implementation of Recovery Plan Actions Has Been the Primary Driver in
Recovering 13 Species:
Thirteen of the species we reviewed are recovering, in large part due
to the implementation of actions in the species' recovery plans.
Although not all of these species are nearing recovery, the success
that these species have had is attributed primarily to the recovery
actions identified in the species' recovery plans. For example, the red-
cockaded woodpecker, which is found in 11 states from Florida to Texas
to Virginia, is expected to recover largely as a result of
implementation of actions in its recovery plan. The species nests in
old pine trees and, by creating and maintaining wounds in the tree that
exude resin, exploits the ability of these pines to produce large
amounts of resin. The resin creates an effective barrier against
climbing snakes and prevents nest predation. The woodpecker requires
large pine trees because it excavates a cavity within the heartwood
(center) of the tree. The diameter of the heartwood must be large
enough to contain the entire cavity--otherwise the woodpecker could be
entrapped by the resin. The woodpecker requires pines at least 60 to 80
years old because the higher incidence of heartwood decay greatly
facilitates cavity excavation. Excavation can take many years, and
averages from 6 to 13 years depending on the type of tree being
excavated. The species declined significantly because logging
eliminated much of the woodpecker's habitat of old-growth pine. FWS
biologists report that, although the woodpecker was listed in 1970, not
enough was known about the species' biology to develop the recovery
actions necessary to bring about the bird's recovery until the mid
1990s. Three of the most significant efforts that have helped the
woodpecker were in the plan--prescribed burns have helped develop
suitable habitat, artificial nesting cavities have provided a stop-gap
measure until existing pine trees mature, and translocation of birds to
new locations with suitable habitat has expanded the population. The
plan also identified measures to protect existing woodpecker habitat on
private land, for example, through conservation agreements. Since the
development and implementation of the recovery plan, woodpecker
populations have been steadily increasing. Table 7 summarizes some key
details for these 13 species.
Table 7: Species Whose Recovery Plans Have Played a Primary Role in the
Species' Progress toward Recovery:
Species name: Black-footed ferret;
Role of plan in species recovery: A captive breeding program outlined
in the recovery plan was essential to creating self-sustaining
populations in the wild.
Species name: Colorado pikeminnow;
Role of plan in species recovery: Key actions in the recovery plan
include restoring water flows and controlling the introduction of
nonnative fish.
Species name: Columbian white-tailed deer--Douglas County DPS[A];
Role of plan in species recovery: Key actions in the recovery plan
include habitat protection (through land acquisition, easements, and
other means) by federal, state, and local agencies;
and monitoring conducted by the state to determine the status of the
species.
Species name: Florida panther;
Role of plan in species recovery: Key actions in the recovery plan
include introducing Texas mountain lions (a closely related subspecies)
to keep the species from becoming dangerously inbred;
collaring and monitoring to determine population health and status;
and installing highway underpasses to reduce mortality.
Species name: Indiana bat;
Role of plan in species recovery: The recovery plan included various
steps to protect hibernacula and reduce disturbances to hibernating
bats.
Species name: Papery whitlow-wort--central Florida subspecies (plant);
Role of plan in species recovery: Land acquisition and restoration
activities included in the recovery plan are helping recover this
species.
Species name: Papery whitlow-wort--Florida panhandle subspecies
(plant);
Role of plan in species recovery: Land acquisition and restoration
activities included in the recovery plan, although still incomplete,
have helped this species.
Species name: Razorback sucker;
Role of plan in species recovery: Key actions in the recovery plan
include land acquisition to provide floodplain habitat and controlling
the introduction of nonnative fish species.
Species name: Red-cockaded woodpecker;
Role of plan in species recovery: The most beneficial actions in the
recovery plan have been prescribed burns to ensure suitable foraging
habitat and prevent hardwood tree encroachment;
relocation of some woodpeckers to areas with suitable habitat;
and providing artificial nesting cavities until trees are mature enough
to be used by the species.
Species name: Rio Grande silvery minnow;
Role of plan in species recovery: Key actions in the recovery plan
include augmenting wild populations of minnows, restoring habitat, and
purchasing water rights to help ensure adequate water flows.
Species name: Southwestern willow flycatcher (bird);
Role of plan in species recovery: A large number of stakeholders
collaborated on the recovery plan. This public support has been the
most effective plan- related action to date. The plan is only 2 years
old, and public support will be essential to implement the widespread
habitat restoration and protection that is needed to recover the
species.
Species name: Truckee barberry (plant);
Role of plan in species recovery: Taxonomic research called for in the
recovery plan determined that the Truckee barberry should be
reclassified as part of a more prevalent species.
Species name: West Indian manatee (Florida population);
Role of plan in species recovery: Key actions in the recovery plan
include reducing mortality from boat collisions, fishing gear
entanglement, and entrapment in navigation locks.
Source: FWS. AA DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for
purposes of listing, is treated as a species under the Endangered
Species Act.
[End of table]
Recovery for 17 Species is Driven by Both the Recovery Plan and Other
Factors:
For 17 of the species we reviewed, biologists report that, while
recovery plans played important roles, events outside of the plans have
also been critical to the species' recovery efforts. In some cases,
historic and legal events have been critical to a species' recovery.
For example, the whooping crane benefited from protections that
occurred before endangered species legislation was in existence. In the
early 1900s, it was recognized that the crane's population was
decreasing. The major cause of this decline was thought to be hunting
and, as wetlands were drained and turned into farmland, habitat loss.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916 prohibited hunting of the crane
(and most other migratory birds in the United States). The crane also
benefited from the creation of two protected areas--one specifically to
protect the crane, the other to protect another species that shared the
crane's habitat. In 1922, Canada created a national park to protect a
small herd of bison and the crane was later found to summer there. In
1937, the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas was created to
protect cranes that were currently wintering there. While these actions
were critical to protecting the crane and its habitat, the population
remained low and did not exceed 100 until the winter of 1983-84.
Accordingly, the 1980 recovery plan set forth many additional recovery
actions that have greatly helped the species, such as introducing
captively-bred cranes into the wild. Perhaps the best-known of these
recovery actions is the use of ultralight aircraft to teach cranes
migration routes between summer and winter habitats.
Similarly, the Borax Lake chub also benefited from several events not
included in its recovery plan. The chub is a fish, typically less than
2 inches long, found in Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in arid
southeastern Oregon. The lake is fed by several thermal springs that
were vulnerable to geothermal development. The immediate threat was
removed when the energy exploration company speculating in the area
abandoned its plans to pursue development of a hydrogeothermal facility
in the Borax Lake area. These actions were not part of the recovery
plan but were critical to protecting the Borax Lake chub. They were
supplemented by implementation of a key action called for in the
recovery plan--purchasing the privately owned land surrounding the
lake.
For other species, the discovery of new populations has played an
important role in their recovery. For example, Johnston's frankenia, a
small perennial shrub found in south Texas and an adjacent area in
northeastern Mexico, was listed under the Endangered Species Act in
1984. At the time of listing, there were only five known populations in
Texas--all on privately-owned lands. However, many private lands had
not been surveyed for the species because of resistance from the
landowners. A key action in the recovery plan was working with
landowners to gain access to their lands to conduct monitoring. Once
this was accomplished, the plant was found to be more prevalent than
thought at the time of listing, and FWS proposed delisting the species
in 2003. While the discovery of previously unknown populations is a
fortunate event that cannot be prescribed by a recovery plan,
monitoring and surveying to determine species' abundance and
distribution can be included in a recovery plan. Table 8 summarizes
some key details for these 17 species.
Table 8: Species Whose Recovery Has Been Aided by Both Recovery Plans
and Other Factors:
Species name: Ash Meadows gumplant (plant);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Securing land and
water rights to protect habitat;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Creation of a national wildlife refuge to protect essential habitat.
Species name: Ash Meadows sunray (plant);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Securing land and
water rights to protect habitat;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Creation of a national wildlife refuge to protect essential habitat.
Species name: Bald eagle;
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Habitat protection
and enhancement of nesting areas, and management guidelines to limit
disturbances around nests;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Banning of DDT in 1972.
Species name: Borax Lake chub (fish);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Land acquisition
around Borax Lake, and the Bureau of Land Management placing special
management status on the area around the lake;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Withdrawal of an energy exploration company's plans to pursue
development of a hydrogeothermal facility in the Borax Lake area.
Species name: Eggert's sunflower (plant);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Prescribed fires to
improve habitat;
research on genetics;
and, for habitat, management plans and conservation agreements;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Species was more prevalent than thought at the time of listing.
Species name: Gray wolf (western Great Lakes recovery population);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Strong enforcement
of hunting prohibition, depredation control and compensation programs,
and public education;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Protections, due to listing the species, sharply curtailed hunting;
state programs that protected the wolf also were important.
Species name: Johnston's frankenia (plant);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Getting private
landowners' cooperation to survey habitat;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Species was more prevalent than thought at the time of listing.
Species name: Magazine Mountain shagreen (land snail);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: U.S. Forest Service
designating habitat areas as "special interest" areas and conducting
additional monitoring;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery: The
Department of Defense withdrew plans to use the area for exercises, and
FWS provided input to protect the species during development of an
environmental impact statement for construction of a facility near the
species' habitat.
Species name: Northern right whale (north Atlantic population);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Reducing collisions
with ships and entanglement with fishing gear;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
World-wide ban on hunting in 1935 saved the species from extinction.
Species name: Socorro isopod (crustacean);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Another population
of isopods was created in 1990 that relies on the same spring as the
original population, bringing the total number of isopod populations to
three;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Establishment of a captive population in 1977 was relied on to
repopulate the habitat when the only wild population became extinct in
1988.
Species name: Spring-loving centaury (plant);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Securing land and
water rights to protect habitat;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Creation of a national wildlife refuge to protect essential habitat.
Species name: Steller sea lion (eastern DPS)[A];
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Prohibition on
shooting, and protection of habitat and offshore foraging areas;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Species name: Steller sea lion (western DPS)[A];
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Reduction of
competition for prey with commercial fishing operations;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Species name: Uinta Basin hookless cactus;
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Research to
determine species morphology;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Species was more prevalent than thought at the time of listing.
Species name: Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly;
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Closures of key
areas to prevent illegal collection, monitoring to identify additional
colonies, and management of sheep grazing;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery: The
U.S. Forest Service established a "no ground disturbing" provision for
the Rio Grande National Forest that prevents animals such as sheep from
trampling potential butterfly habitat.
Species name: Virginia round-leaf birch (tree);
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Habitat alteration
to provide more sunlight to seedlings in the wild and distribution of
greenhouse-grown seedlings to the public to stop collection from wild
populations;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
U.S. Forest Service fenced the two mature trees that occurred on
National Forest land and conducted soil disturbance activities to
encourage seed germination.
Species name: Whooping crane;
Important recovery actions found in recovery plans: Captive breeding
and reintroduction programs;
Events outside of recovery plans that have aided species' recovery:
Protection of key habitat areas through the creation, in 1922, of a
national park in Canada and the creation, in 1937, of a national
wildlife refuge in Texas.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
[A] A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes
of listing, is treated as a species under the Endangered Species Act.
[End of table]
Agency Comments:
We provided Interior and Commerce with a draft of this report for
review and comment. Interior generally agreed with the information
presented in this report; its letter is presented in appendix III.
Additionally, Interior provided technical comments that we have
incorporated into the report, as appropriate. Commerce declined to
provide a general assessment of the draft because the report does not
contain recommendations. Commerce did, however, provide technical
comments that we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We performed our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A
description of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
As discussed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until
30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send 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 [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors
to this report were Charles T. Egan, Trish McClure, Alison O'Neill,
Rebecca Shea, Maria Vargas, and Mary Welch.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
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:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In response to a request from 10 members of Congress, we (1) identified
factors affecting the length of time to recover 31 selected species
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act,
and (2) described the role that recovery plans have played in
recovering these species. As agreed with our requesters, we selected a
nonprobability sample of species to review. Results from nonprobability
samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population because
some elements in the studied population have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected. However, our in-depth review of these
selected species provides valuable, case-level insights into their
progress toward recovery and the role that recovery plans have played
in that progress.
We used a multi-step process to select the nonprobability sample of
species for review. First, we used three criteria to identify species
that were nearing recovery or had significant attention devoted to
them, and thus would be expected to be making progress towards
recovery. These three criteria were: (1) species that are nearing
recovery as reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), (2)
species with relatively high federal and state expenditures, and (3)
species with at least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery.
To identify species nearing recovery, we used FWS's fiscal year 2001-
2002 biennial report to Congress on the status of species
recovery.[Footnote 9] This was the most recent report available at the
time we selected our sample. In this report, FWS provides the percent
of recovery objectives achieved for each species--both for those which
it has primary responsibility, and for those which it shares
responsibility with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We
considered species to be nearing recovery if they were reported to have
achieved 76 to 100 percent of their recovery objectives. NMFS does not
report this measure. To identify species with relatively high federal
and state expenditures, we used the fiscal year 2003 annual report to
Congress of federal and state expenditures.[Footnote 10] This was the
most recent report available at the time we selected our species. It
provides expenditure data on all listed species, regardless of which
service has primary responsibility. We excluded salmon, steelhead, and
the desert tortoise from this sample, even though they had relatively
high expenditures, because we have issued comprehensive reports on
these species.[Footnote 11]We relied on FWS officials to identify
species that had at least one full-time staff member devoted to
recovery efforts. NMFS officials told us that their staff work in
recovery teams, and that having a full-time staff member dedicated to
recovery efforts would not be a good measure of the resources the
agency was devoting to recovery of the species. We identified 40
species that met these three criteria.
Next, because of time and resource constraints, we took several steps
to reduce the 40 species to a more manageable number. We prioritized
species for review by generally selecting all of the species that
satisfied at least two of the three criteria, and species that were
nearing recovery and had relatively low federal and state expenditures
(in order to understand how species can achieve recovery with
relatively low expenditures). This process yielded 20 species for
review. As agreed with your offices, we reviewed all 20 of these
species and as many of the remaining 20 species as time and resources
permitted. To prioritize this second group of 20 species, we excluded
certain species from review based on a variety of factors. For example,
we chose to exclude species that were similar, or had similar habitats,
to other species that were already included for review. For instance,
we excluded some populations of the gray wolf from our sample because
we had included the western Great Lakes population of the gray wolf in
our first group of 20 species for review. We also excluded the
Louisiana black bear because of the additional demands that Hurricane
Katrina placed on local FWS staff. This process reduced the second
group of species for review down to nine.
While our selection process yielded 29 species for review, we
ultimately reported on 31 species because 2 of the species we selected-
-the Papery whitlow-wort and the Steller sea lion--consist of
subspecies or distinct population segments (DPS), and we included these
in our review.[Footnote 12] FWS has primary responsibility for all the
species we reviewed except for three--the northern right whale and the
eastern and western DPSs of the Steller sea lion--for which NMFS has
primary responsibility.
To identify factors affecting the length of time to recover the 31
selected species and describe the role that recovery plans have played
in recovering these species, we reviewed each species' recovery plan
and Federal Register documents associated with each species' listing
and delisting actions, as appropriate. We also interviewed the
services' officials at headquarters, and the services' biologists
designated as the primary contact for each species' recovery effort,
and obtained additional documentation, as necessary.
We performed our work between September 2005 and August 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Table 9 lists the species included in our nonprobability sample and the
criteria used to select them.
Table 9: Selection Criteria for Species Included in Our Nonprobability
Sample:
Species name: Mammals: Black-footed ferret;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: $1,791,796;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 0-25 percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Yes.
Species name: Mammals: Columbian white-tailed deer (Douglas County
population);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: Not Available[A];
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001- 2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Mammals: Florida panther;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 6,301,276;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 0-25 percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Yes.
Species name: Mammals: Gray wolf (western Great Lakes population);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 403,108;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76- 100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Yes.
Species name: Mammals: Indiana bat;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 5,218,103;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 26-50
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Mammals: Northern right whale (north Atlantic
population);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 11,802,149;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: Not
Applicable[B];
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Not
Applicable[C].
Species name: Mammals: Steller sea lion (eastern DPS);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 5,296,600;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: Not
Applicable[B];
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Not
Applicable[C].
Species name: Mammals: Steller sea lion (western DPS);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 49,514,210;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: Not
Applicable[B];
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Not
Applicable[C].
Species name: Mammals: West Indian manatee (Florida population);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 9,798,514;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 26- 50
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Birds: Bald eagle (northern states recovery area);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 7,831,531;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76- 100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Birds: Red-cockaded woodpecker;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 11,069,069;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 0-25 percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Yes.
Species name: Birds: Southwestern willow flycatcher;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 9,909,284;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 0-25 percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Yes.
Species name: Birds: Whooping crane;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 3,299,156;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 26-50
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Yes.
Species name: Fishes: Borax Lake chub;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 19,600;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Fishes: Colorado pikeminnow;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 6,872,158;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 51-75
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Fishes: Razorback sucker;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 7,127,470;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 0-25 percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Fishes: Rio Grande silvery minnow;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 11,300,700;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 0-25 percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: Yes.
Species name: Snails: Magazine Mountain shagreen;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 0;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Insects: Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 40,343;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Crustaceans: Socorro isopod;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 5,500;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Ash Meadows gumplant;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 0;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Ash Meadows sunray;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 300;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: (Ash Meadows) Spring-loving centaury;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: M0;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Dwarf-flowered heartleaf;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 4,520;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Eggert's sunflower;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 178,520;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Johnston's frankenia;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 51,200;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Papery whitlow-wort (central Florida subspecies);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 200;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76- 100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Papery whitlow-wort (Florida panhandle
subspecies);
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: Expenditures included under
Papery whitlow-wort (central Florida subspecies);
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Truckee barberry;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 30,225;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Uinta Basin hookless cactus;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 30,747;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Species name: Plants: Virginia round-leaf birch;
Federal and state expenditures, FY 2003: 1,300;
Percentage Of recovery objectives achieved, FY 2001-2002: 76-100
percent;
At least one full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts: No.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
[A] The Douglas County population of the Columbian white-tailed deer
was not included in the federal and state endangered and threatened
species expenditures report for fiscal year 2003. The species was
delisted in July 2003.
[B] NMFS does not report percent of recovery objectives achieved.
[C] NMFS officials told us that staff work in recovery teams and that
having a full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts would not
be a good measure of the resources the agency was devoting to the
species recovery.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Information on 31 Select Species:
This appendix provides information on each of the 31 species we
reviewed for this report, including species characteristics, threats to
the species' survival, and costs and partnerships for implementing
recovery actions. The species' profiles are organized by taxonomic
group as follows: mammals, birds, fishes, snails, insects, crustaceans,
and plants.
The information provided is based primarily on species' recovery plans,
Federal Register notices associated with the species, and information
provided by the biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) who are responsible for
recovering the species we reviewed. We have attempted to provide
estimates of the costs to date to recover each species, however, there
are inherent limitations to expenditure data, and species-specific
information is not always available because recovery actions may
benefit more than one species (e.g., through habitat restoration).
Additionally, in some cases, federal and state agencies track
expenditures by activity rather than by species. Complete expenditure
data on a species' recovery can also be difficult to obtain, because
many entities, in addition to FWS and NMFS, may implement recovery
actions, but are not required to report their expenditures. These
entities include timber companies and commercial fishing operations,
nongovernmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, and
universities and independent researchers.
Several of the profiles discuss Section 6 funds and Section 7
consultations--these refer to sections in the Endangered Species Act.
Section 6 authorizes grants to states that maintain programs to
conserve listed species. Section 7 requires that federal agencies, in
consultation with FWS or NMFS, insure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Following the consultation, FWS or
NMFS must issue a biological opinion stating how the action will affect
the species or its critical habitat. If jeopardy or adverse
modification is found, the opinion identifies the steps (called
"reasonable and prudent alternatives") needed to avoid such harm. These
consultations may result in an agency modifying its activities.
Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered
Species Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of
threatened and endangered species under the 1973 act.
Mammals:
Black-Footed Ferret:
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) was listed as endangered in
1967, when only a small population remained in South Dakota. By the
early 1970s, the species was thought to be extinct in the wild.
However, a small population of black-footed ferrets was discovered in
Wyoming in 1981. Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced into
Arizona, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Chihuahua,
Mexico. Black-footed ferrets are mostly nocturnal, solitary carnivores
that feed on prairie dogs and live in prairie dog burrows. As such,
black-footed ferret populations closely correspond to prairie dog
populations.
Threats:
The decline of the black-footed ferret was an unintended consequence of
concerted public and private efforts to eliminate prairie dogs. Prairie
dog populations were dramatically reduced or locally eliminated by
large-scale conversion of native grasslands into crop lands, and
decades of widespread poisoning designed to reduce prairie dog
competition with cattle grazing. In more recent years, sylvatic plague,
a disease spread primarily by fleas that is devastating to both prairie
dog and ferret populations, has become a serious threat to ferret
recovery.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the black-footed ferret in June 1978,
revised it in August 1988, and is now revising it again. The plan seeks
to ensure the species' survival by maintaining a captive population and
increasing free-ranging populations to the widest possible distribution
across the ferrets' historical range. FWS officials reported that the
captive breeding program is the most important and expensive recovery
activity for the ferret. FWS started with 18 captured black-footed
ferrets in 1987. Since then, the ferrets have produced more than 5,000
offspring--over 2,000 of which have been released into the wild.
FWS reports that, although the number of black-footed ferrets has
increased substantially, recovery of the species remains a challenge.
While the captive breeding program has worked well, reintroduction
efforts have had mixed success. Two populations in South Dakota and one
in Wyoming are thought to be self-sustaining, and substantial progress
is being made at two other sites. However, drought and plague have
affected population stability at other recovery areas. Specifically, a
drought in South Dakota last year caused prairie dog populations in a
section of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, where the black-footed
ferret had been successfully reintroduced, to disperse onto adjacent
private lands. Thousands of acres of public and private lands were
subsequently baited with poison by private landowners to eliminate the
prairie dogs. Additionally, FWS and several partners are currently
pursuing a plague vaccine for the ferret that appears promising.
According to FWS officials, the technology and expertise to fully
recover the ferret exists; they estimate that they could delist the
species by 2025. However, the officials note that sufficient commitment
from federal agencies, states, and private landowners to restore and
protect sufficient habitat for wild populations does not exist and, as
a result, the ferret faces an uncertain future.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials were not able to provide expenditure data for black-
footed ferret recovery efforts, but estimated that the many partners
involved in the species' recovery spend more than $2 million annually.
More than 50 percent of recovery expenditures is for captive breeding;
35 to 45 percent is for reintroduction, monitoring, trapping for
relocation, and habitat assessment. A very small fraction of
expenditures is for habitat conservation. Some 27 state and federal
agencies, tribes, and conservation organizations are official
participants on FWS's black-footed ferret recovery implementation team.
Columbian White-Tailed Deer (Douglas County Population):
The Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) was
listed as endangered in 1967. At that time, only a small population was
known to survive along the lower Columbia River and on some islands off
the coast of Washington; however, an additional population was
discovered in 1978 in Douglas County, Oregon. The lower Columbia River
and the Douglas County populations were treated separately for recovery
purposes because of differences in location, habitat, threats, and land
use. The Douglas County population was classified as a distinct
population segment (DPS) and delisted in 2003.[Footnote 13]
Threats:
An FWS official reports that the primary threats to the Columbian white-
tailed deer were habitat loss and hunting (both legal and illegal).
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Columbian white-tailed deer in
1976 and revised it in 1983 after the 1978 discovery of the Douglas
County population. An FWS official reports that the most effective
recovery actions for the species were in the plan and were: (1) land
acquisitions by state and local governments, FWS, and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to secure habitat; (2) a Douglas County ordinance
that protects, in perpetuity, riparian areas from development; and (3)
a partnership with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has researched, monitored, and
maintained location and health data for the species for many years, and
modified its monitoring methods at FWS's request to obtain the data
needed to delist the Douglas County population.
Costs and Partnerships:
An FWS official reports that the agency does not have comprehensive
recovery expenditure data for the Columbian white-tailed deer, but
notes that recovery was done on a "shoestring budget" because, once FWS
secured suitable habitat, the population rebounded without extensive
agency intervention. FWS estimates it took about 20 percent of one
staff member's annual salary to conduct recovery activities and delist
the Douglas County population. Between 1995 and 1998, FWS also provided
$177,000 in funding through a cooperative agreement with the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife for monitoring and habitat research.
Douglas County also incurred expenses to protect habitat and some
private landowners contributed funds to recovery efforts. The FWS
official attributes the Columbian white-tailed deer's recovery to
"strong partnerships and a cooperative spirit" with other governmental
entities.
Florida Panther:
The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), a subspecies of mountain
lion, was listed as endangered in 1967. The Florida panther is six to
seven feet long with short, dark rust-colored fur. It originally ranged
from eastern Texas to South Carolina--through Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Tennessee--but
is now restricted to less than 5 percent of its historic range.
Threats:
The Florida panther faces several threats, including habitat loss, low
genetic viability, and disease. The habitat that supports the only wild
population is already at its carrying capacity and is shrinking by
about 1 percent annually. Habitat loss is due to intensified
urbanization, residential development, conversion to agriculture, water
management, and mining and mineral exploitation. Because there are so
few wild panthers in Florida, the species has suffered a loss of
genetic variability--which often causes diminished health, such as
heart and reproductive defects. The panther is also susceptible to
diseases such as panleukopenia (decreased white blood cells), feline
calicivirus, and pseudorabies. Any or all of these may increase kitten
mortality and seriously reduce adult panther vitality. In 2003 and
2004, 5 of the 87 known wild Florida panthers were lost to feline
leukemia. FWS officials report that a lack of public support, based on
fear of the animal and its predation on livestock and pets, is an
obstacle to reintroducing the Florida panther into other sites in its
historic range and, ultimately, recovering the species.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Florida panther in 1981 and
revised it in 1987, 1995, and 2006. According to FWS officials, the
most important recovery actions for the species are found in the
recovery plan. These include habitat protection, radio collaring and
monitoring to determine the health and status of the population,
constructing highway underpasses to reduce vehicle strikes, and
introducing female panthers from Texas (which belong to a related
subspecies) to the Florida population to restore genetic health. FWS
officials said that one new female Texas panther needs to be introduced
into the Florida population each generation to maintain sufficient
genetic diversity. FWS officials report that the recovery plan for the
Florida panther has been critical in keeping it from becoming extinct,
but note that the plan focuses on avoiding extinction rather than
promoting recovery.
FWS officials report that it is unlikely that the panther will ever be
recovered and delisted. Officials say that the Florida panther will
never have a genetically sustainable population in south Florida
because available habitat is not large enough to support a self-
sustaining population, which would require at least 240 panthers,
particularly given the rapid development that this area experiences.
FWS has identified areas in Arkansas, Alabama, and northern Florida/
southern Georgia where enough habitat exists to sustain populations of
that size. However, reintroduction of panthers into these areas is
unlikely to occur because of a lack of public support.
Costs and Partnerships:
Most recovery tasks for the panther are implemented by the Florida
Panther Interagency Committee, which was organized in 1986. This
committee consists of several agencies including FWS, the National Park
Service, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. FWS officials were
unable to provide recovery expenditure data on panther recovery, but
estimate that Florida state agencies bear about 90 percent of the
costs, while the National Park Service and FWS account for about 7
percent and 3 percent, respectively. The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, with help from the National Park Service, has
played a major role in genetics, radio collaring, and monitoring
activities.
Gray Wolf (Western Great Lakes Recovery Population):
The gray wolf was listed as endangered in 1967. Gray wolves weigh about
50 to 100 pounds and are usually a mixed gray color. The gray wolf has
had a complex relationship with the law. When the act first took effect
in 1973, two populations of gray wolves were "grandfathered" onto the
list of threatened and endangered species--one in Minnesota and
Michigan, and one in the northern Rocky Mountains. In 1976, two more
populations of gray wolves that ranged in the southwestern United
States were added to the list. To update the taxonomy of the species
based on new information and address other issues, FWS issued a new
listing in 1978 that classified the gray wolf as a single species that
was endangered throughout the lower 48 states, except for a population
in Minnesota that was listed as threatened. Even though the gray wolf
was listed as a single species, FWS still recognized separate
populations for managing recovery efforts. (FWS officials later
determined that wolves that historically occurred in 16 southeastern
states were actually a separate species--the red wolf.) For this
report, we evaluated recovery actions for the western Great Lakes
population; other populations are the western (which includes the Rocky
Mountains) and the southwestern populations.
The historic range of the western Great Lakes population (Canis lupus
lycaon) once included most of the eastern United States and
southeastern Canada, but its present U.S. range only includes parts of
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. FWS officials believe that this
population is ready to be delisted. However, its delisting is
constrained because it is not listed as a separate entity--it is part
of the larger gray wolf listing. To clarify the current status of the
various populations of gray wolves and to delist the western Great
Lakes population, FWS proposed a rule in 2000 to (1) reclassify the
gray wolf as "not listed" in 16 southeastern states that are historic
red wolf ranges; (2) establish a DPS for the western Great Lakes
population to be listed as threatened; (3) establish a DPS for the
western population to be listed as threatened; and (4) establish a DPS
for the southwestern population to be listed as endangered. While the
rule was finalized in 2003, FWS was sued for this action. In early
2005, courts ruled that FWS's action was arbitrary and capricious with
regard to how they grouped states into these four separate
classifications. Therefore, the wolf listing reverted to the prior
listing action from 1978; this listing identifies the gray wolf as
endangered in 47 of the lower 48 states, and threatened in Minnesota.
To address the court's concern with the prior delisting proposal, FWS
is addressing redesignation of the gray wolf on a population-by-
population basis. In February 2006, FWS issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking to establish a Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and
delist it at the same time. Similarly, in March 2006, FWS officials
proposed a rule to create a western Great Lakes DPS and delist it at
the same time.
Threats:
FWS officials report that ranchers who kill the wolf to protect
livestock are the primary threat to the western Great Lakes population.
In addition, the public's fear of wolves results in opposition, which
is a complicating factor for recovery of the species.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the western Great Lakes population of
the gray wolf in 1978 and revised it in 1992. Officials reported that
the comprehensiveness of this plan and the numerous partners' efforts
made recovery of the western Great Lakes population possible. Actions
in the recovery plan that were most important for recovering this
population were the creation of programs to compensate ranchers for
livestock lost to wolves, and the removal of wolves from areas where
they prey on livestock. The plan also included public education on wolf
biology, behavior, and ecology that has been important for improving
the public's understanding of the species.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that the large number of entities involved in
recovery efforts for the gray wolf makes it impossible to estimate
total expenditures. FWS expenditures in fiscal year 2004 included
almost $645,000-$140,000 for law enforcement; $60,000 for Section 7
consultations, mostly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture; $55,000
for monitoring and research on FWS refuges; and about $390,000 for the
delisting process. The agriculture and natural resources departments in
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin dedicate resources to help FWS
enforce laws that protect the gray wolf. Additionally, these states,
along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Service and
the nongovernmental organization Defenders of Wildlife, fund and manage
the livestock compensation programs. Public education is conducted by a
variety of additional nongovernmental organizations, such as the
International Wolf Center and the Timber Wolf Alliance. Indian tribes
also protect the gray wolf on their land.
Indiana Bat:
The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) was listed as endangered in March
1967. The Indiana bat is a migratory species that hibernates in the
winter and disperses throughout much of the eastern United States in
the summer. Based on censuses taken every other year in caves where the
bats hibernate during the winter (called hibernacula), researchers
estimate that the Indiana bat population has declined by about 60
percent since the 1960s--falling to about 353,000 in the mid 1990s.
Threats:
FWS officials report that they initially believed that winter habitat
loss was the primary threat to the Indiana bat. The bats require
certain temperatures in caves during their winter hibernation--they
will freeze if the temperature is too low and burn up their fat
reserves before spring if the temperature is too high. Large numbers of
Indiana bats hibernate in a very small number of large, complex caves
because such caves provide a more stable temperature than smaller
caves. However, these caves are often easily accessible to humans and
have features that make them attractive for recreational and commercial
purposes. As a result, doors and walls were often added to cave
openings, changing the temperature of the caves to the point that they
no longer provide suitable habitat. In addition, researchers now
believe that bat populations are affected by a number of threats when
they are not hibernating, the most significant of which are not yet
known.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the Indiana bat in 1983, and
drafted a revision in March 1999. The 1999 revision, however, was not
approved because of differences of opinion among recovery team members,
and because FWS needed to address the significant public comments
received. A new draft revision is expected in 2006. FWS officials
report that an important recovery action that was identified in the
1983 recovery plan was to protect hibernacula. Actions have been
implemented to do this, including removing doors and walls in order to
restore cave temperatures to normal, gating hibernacula to control
human access, and allowing cave tours only during the summer when bats
are not present. However, FWS officials report that these efforts have
not always resulted in the expected increases in hibernating
populations, suggesting that additional, unknown threats affect the
Indiana bat. Therefore, the draft revision of the recovery plan is
focusing heavily on research. FWS officials report that they cannot
estimate the Indiana bat's potential for delisting because they lack
sufficient information about key aspects of the species' life cycle and
the threats it faces. It appears that the population is increasing;
however, it remains far below historic levels.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials could not provide an estimate of recovery expenditures
for the Indiana bat because they are not centrally collected. Partners
include states, which have used Section 6 funds for land acquisition,
and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) and Department of Defense,
which monitor summer bat colonies on their lands.
Northern Right Whale:
The northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) was listed as endangered
in 1970. Adult right whales are generally between 45 and 55 feet in
length and can weigh up to 70 tons. Historically, there were two
populations of this whale. An eastern North Atlantic population was
historically found along the northwestern coast of Africa and in
Northern European waters, but is generally considered to be extinct. A
western North Atlantic population is found along the eastern United
States coast and includes about 300 whales.
Threats:
The primary threats to the survival of the northern right whale are its
low population numbers, fishing gear entanglement, and collisions with
ships. In the past, the greatest threat was commercial whaling, which
was banned internationally in 1935.
Role of Recovery Plan:
NMFS approved a recovery plan for the northern right whale in 1991, and
revised it in 2005. Several important recovery actions included in the
recovery plan have been implemented for the species. In particular,
extensive effort is expended implementing surveillance and alert
systems. Specifically, aircraft surveys identify locations of right
whales; these locations are then shared with ship captains. On a number
of occasions, aircraft observers were able to contact and divert ships
on direct courses for right whales. In addition, NMFS and the U. S.
Coast Guard jointly developed a mandatory ship reporting system that
became operational in 1999 for use in right whale habitat to help avoid
ship strikes. Ships entering right whale habitat are required to report
their location, speed, and direction; an automatic message replies with
relevant whale location information. U. S.Navy vessels also report
information on ship strikes and provide advisories to ship captains.
Other important actions that have been implemented from the recovery
plan include closing fishing areas during certain times, and buy-back
programs for commercial fishing operations in which old fishing gear is
purchased so it can be replaced with specially designed new gear that
is less hazardous to whales. NMFS is also proposing prohibiting float
rope--used by fisherman between traps and fishing gear--which creates
large loops of line that can cause serious injury and mortality to
right whales. Although significant steps have been taken to reduce
fishing gear entanglements and ship strikes, NMFS officials acknowledge
that additional efforts are needed. NMFS officials report that the
northern right whale has a high potential for recovery because the
threats to the species are known and manageable. However, they report
that it will take more than 50 years to meet recovery goals because
right whales reproduce infrequently.
Costs and Partnerships:
NMFS officials report that it would be difficult to provide
comprehensive cost estimates because significant funding for right
whale recovery is provided by other entities. Key partners in right
whale recovery include the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, other
government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the commercial
fishing industry.
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western DPSs):
The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) was listed as threatened in
1990. In the 1950s, an estimated 240,000 to 300,000 Steller sea lions
ranged across the Pacific rim from southern California, Canada, and
Alaska, into Russia and northern Japan. By 1990, the species had
declined by about 80 percent. In 1997, NMFS reclassified the Steller
sea lion as two DPSs based on new genetic information--the eastern DPS
extends east from Cape Suckling, Alaska, to British Columbia, and south
to California; the western DPS extends from Japan around the Pacific
Rim to Cape Suckling. The eastern DPS was listed as threatened, while
the western DPS was listed as endangered.
Threats:
NMFS reports that the primary threat to the Steller sea lion, at the
time it was listed, was the killing of sea lions to protect fishing
gear and reduce their population size. Additional threats for the
western DPS include predation by killer whales, environmental change,
subsistence harvests, and disease. These threats also affect the
eastern DPS, but do not appear to be limiting its recovery.
Role of Recovery Plan:
NMFS approved a recovery plan for the Steller sea lion in 1992, and a
draft revision is currently being considered. Important actions in the
1992 recovery plan were to collect background information on the
biology of Steller sea lions, develop and implement new research
methods to better understand the causes of decline, and assess the
efficacy of fishery conservation measures. In accordance with the
recovery plan, NMFS and its partners have monitored Steller sea lion
population trends, gained valuable information on general sea lion
ecology, evaluated threats to recovery, and determined which
populations are at risk. Key conservation measures in the recovery plan
that have been implemented include reducing direct and incidental harm
and killing by commercial fishing operations, eliminating disturbances
at breeding sites, and reducing competition with commercial fisheries
for sea lion prey.
NMFS officials report that the eastern DPS has been doing well for
quite some time and hope to delist it by 2010. The western DPS has been
increasing by about 3 percent annually since 2000, but NMFS reports
that this increase may not represent a statistically significant trend.
The increases correlate with recovery actions taken in the late 1990s
and 2000s to reduce direct harm and killing of sea lions by commercial
fisheries and competition between fisheries and Steller sea lions;
however, NMFS cannot definitively determine a causal link. If the
western DPS continues to increase, NMFS officials said that they may
consider downlisting it within the next decade and delisting it around
2030.
Costs and Partnerships:
Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS received over $167 million in
appropriations for Steller sea lion recovery efforts, with most of that
provided in recent years. Funding from 1992 through 2000 totaled just
$18.5 million, compared to about $149 million between 2001 and 2005--a
substantial increase that resulted from concerns about the potential
impact of commercial fisheries on the Steller sea lion's decline. The
most significant expenditures for the sea lion are on research.
Approximately $40 million per year in 2001 and 2002 was dedicated to
research; current funding for research is about $20 million per year.
Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS's internal funding accounted for about one-
third of the overall expenditures on sea lion recovery (about $52
million); the remainder of the $167 million was distributed in the form
of grants to state government, fishery management councils, and the
public. NMFS activities include conducting Section 7 consultations,
supporting the recovery team, and implementing conservation actions and
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS officials report that partners
have been critical to sea lion recovery efforts and include state
governments, fishery management councils, and the public.
West Indian Manatee (Florida Population):
The Florida subspecies (Trichechus manatus latirostris) of the West
Indian manatee was listed in 1967.[Footnote 14] The manatee is a large
gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about 10 feet long and
weigh about 1,000 pounds. Florida manatees can be found throughout the
southeastern United States, with Florida and Georgia at the core of its
range. The Florida population consists of four subpopulations, divided
regionally throughout coastal and riverine waters: the Atlantic, St.
Johns River, northwest, and southwest. The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission's 2001 survey of the Florida population
reported a minimum of 1,400 to 1,500 manatees in the Atlantic
subpopulation; 1,400 in the southwest subpopulation; 175 in the upper
St. Johns River subpopulation; and 400 in the northwest subpopulation.
Threats:
FWS officials report that the primary threats to the manatee are
collisions with watercraft, entrapment in navigation locks,
entanglement in fishing gear, and a lack of warm-water wintering sites.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the manatee in 1980 and updated it in
1989, 1996, and 2001. FWS officials report that decreasing the number
of manatee deaths from watercraft collisions, entrapment in navigation
locks, and entanglement in fishing gear are the most important efforts
implemented as part of the recovery plan. Watercraft collisions, and
related manatee deaths and injuries, have been the focus of FWS's and
its partner's recovery activities for many years. At least 25 percent
of manatee mortalities are caused by collisions with watercraft, and
many manatees bear scars from these encounters. Federal and state
managers have sought to reduce the number of such deaths and injuries
through law enforcement, outreach, education, and the designation of
manatee protection areas and no-wake zones. This process is ongoing,
and efforts continue to reduce the number of such events.
To reduce entrapment in navigation locks, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps) and state water management agencies have
retrofitted water control structures and navigation locks with pressure
sensors or acoustic arrays--devices that use acoustic signals to detect
the presence of manatees--to allow trapped manatees to escape. In
addition, Florida has banned fishing nets and is considering seasonal
closures of fishing areas, which may help to reduce manatee mortality
from entanglement in fishing gear.
FWS officials report that they do not anticipate delisting the manatee
in the near future, although they are reviewing the species to
determine if it should be downlisted from endangered to threatened. The
availability of warm-water wintering sites remains a major challenge to
manatee recovery. Historically, the manatee relied on warm water from
natural springs; these springs are diminishing, however. Many warm-
water sites currently used by manatees are created artificially through
discharges from power plants and other industries. Approximately 585
manatees have been counted at a single warm-water discharge site. If
one of these plants closes and the water cools, even temporarily,
manatee mortalities could number in the hundreds. Because manatees
return to the same warm-water wintering sites year after year,
preserving these sites is critical to successful recovery efforts--as
is trying to attract manatees to more secure sites. However, given
their fidelity to a single wintering site, it will take a long time to
attract sufficient numbers of manatees to more secure wintering sites.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that estimating the cost of recovery for the
manatee is challenging because of the large number of public and
private organizations involved, but note that the costs are very high.
For example, FWS officials state that, from fiscal years 1994 through
2005, the Corps spent over $7 million retrofitting gates on water
control structures with pressure sensors and equipping navigation locks
with acoustic arrays. It costs approximately $100,000 to retrofit each
gate with the pressure sensors, and $1,000,000 to install acoustic
arrays on navigation locks. State agencies have also contributed funds
for these activities, but FWS officials did not have that cost
information. Additional partners in manatee recovery include several
zoos and aquaria--located in California, Florida, Ohio, and Puerto
Rico--that conduct manatee rescue rehabilitation and release programs.
In these programs, a manatee is brought into captivity when injured or
sick and, upon rehabilitation, released back into the wild. FWS
officials report that these programs also cost millions of dollars.
Birds:
Bald Eagle (Northern States Recovery Area):
The bald eagle is a large bird of prey found only in North America.
Eagles rely primarily on fish for their diet, and their habitat is
almost exclusively near lakes, rivers, and sea coasts. Most bald eagles
live for about 30 years, making it a relatively long-lived species. A
bald eagle subspecies found in the southern United States was listed as
endangered in 1967. However, in 1978, due to a lack of distinguishing
physical characteristics, FWS reclassified all bald eagles in the
United States as one species (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). FWS listed the
species as endangered throughout the lower 48 states, except in
Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin, where it was
classified as threatened. To manage the recovery program for the bald
eagle, FWS established five areas with individual recovery plans. We
reviewed the northern states recovery area, which is the largest of
these recovery areas; it covers 24 states.
According to FWS officials, a 1963 survey of bald eagles in the lower
48 states found only 417 nesting pairs. That number had grown to 3,399
pairs in 1991; of these, 1,188 pairs were found in the FWS region that
leads the efforts for the northern states recovery area. In 1995, the
bald eagle was downlisted from endangered to threatened throughout the
lower 48 states. FWS proposed delisting the bald eagle in 1999 due to
recovery, but met resistance because of concerns over the changes in
protections afforded the species--even though it is also protected by
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. FWS reinitiated the process to delist the bald eagle in February
2006. To address concerns with the prior delisting proposal, FWS also
issued draft management guidelines for bald eagles and a proposed rule
for a regulatory definition for "disturb" under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act.
Threats:
Originally, the primary threats to the bald eagle were hunting,
trapping, and pesticides--especially dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
(DDT), which was widely used in the late 1940s to control insects that
damaged agriculture and carried diseases such as malaria. FWS officials
report that current threats to the bald eagle include habitat loss due
to development and other human activities, especially along the coast
and near inland rivers and waterways.
Role of Recovery Plan:
Historic threats to the bald eagle have long been mitigated. The Bald
Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (amended as the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act in 1962) made hunting and trapping the bald eagle
unlawful; the eagle was afforded additional protection under the
Endangered Species Act. In addition, the Environmental Protection
Agency banned DDT in the United States in 1972 because of the harm it
caused to wildlife. These actions occurred long before there was a
recovery plan for the species.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the northern states population of bald
eagles in 1983. The plan covers 24 states where bald eagles were listed
as either threatened or endangered. Key activities in the plan that
have been implemented include protecting habitat, managing nesting
areas, and educating the public to avoid disturbing habitats. FWS
officials report that education and law enforcement programs called for
by the recovery plan have resulted in habitat restoration and the
reduction of illegal hunting and trapping. Additionally, they report
that the extensive knowledge they obtained through years of research
have contributed to the recovery process. Further, the bald eagles'
prominence as a national symbol, coupled with education and public
support, has also been critical in the recovery of this species. Even
though habitat loss continues to escalate as the U.S. population
increases, bald eagle populations continue to grow.
Costs and Partnerships:
While FWS has led efforts to implement the recovery plan for the bald
eagle, there are a wide variety of government partners in the northern
recovery area, including state forestry departments, the Forest
Service, the National Park Service, the Department of Defense, the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and BLM. Nongovernmental partners include
the National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, the American
Eagle Foundation, forest product companies, and various bird watching
societies. Additionally, FWS officials report that grassroots volunteer
efforts and financial contributions from private parties played an
important role in the bald eagle's recovery. According to FWS
officials, annual expenditures for the recovery and protection of the
bald eagle, by public and private agencies nationwide, have exceeded $1
million each year for the past decade.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker:
The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was listed as
endangered in 1970. It is a black and white bird about 8 inches long.
On occasion, the male displays red feathers on its head. The woodpecker
builds nest cavities in old-growth pine trees (70-120 years old) with
wood that is both soft enough for the woodpecker to make a nest cavity
and large enough for the cavity to be free of pine resin. The bird's
range includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and
Virginia.
Threats:
An FWS official reports that the primary threats to the red-cockaded
woodpecker are habitat fragmentation resulting from development, and
the limited availability of old growth pine trees due to past timber
harvests. Fire suppression activities also severely harm the species'
habitat because they result in hardwood tree encroachment in pine
forests, which in turn causes woodpeckers to abandon their nesting
cavities in these areas.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker in 1979,
and revised it in 1985 and 2003. FWS reports that the most effective
recovery actions are in the species' recovery plan, and include (1) the
scheduling of prescribed burns every 2 to 3 years to ensure suitable
foraging habitat and prevent hardwood tree encroachment, (2) the
building of artificial cavities in suitable trees, and (3) the
relocation of red-cockaded woodpeckers into artificial cavities to
establish new breeding populations. Building artificial cavities is
necessary because most existing trees are not suitable for the red-
cockaded woodpecker to carve cavities.
In addition, during the 1990s, FWS worked with timber companies and
other industries to determine the conditions under which these entities
would assist in recovery efforts for the species, given that some
habitat and potential habitat were privately owned. FWS officials
report that agreements with these entities have played an important
role in the red-cockaded woodpecker's recovery, and also provide
private landowners with economic and legal predictability regarding the
uses of their land.
An FWS official reports that red-cockaded woodpecker populations have
steadily increased, from 4,600 groups in 1995 to 5,900 groups in 2005
(groups include a mating pair and other individuals who help build
nesting cavities.) While these increases are promising, the FWS
official estimates that, because of the time it takes for the
woodpecker's habitat to mature, it will take at least 25 years to
downlist the species and over 50 years to meet the population and
habitat requirements for delisting.
Costs and Partnerships:
An FWS official reports that more than 150 public and private entities
have been involved with recovery efforts; therefore, the complete cost
of the red-cockaded woodpecker's recovery cannot be estimated. Some
federal agencies do have cost information--for example, the Department
of Defense reported spending about $62 million on the species from 1991
through 2003 (an average of about $5 million per year). The Forest
Service spent slightly more than $1 million each year for fiscal years
2004 and 2005. In addition to federal agencies, FWS has agreements with
many state agencies and private entities in Florida, North Carolina,
and South Carolina to implement recovery actions. Private entities
involved include International Paper, The Nature Conservancy, Plum
Creek Timber Company, Turner Endangered Species Fund, and private
landowners.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher:
The southwestern subspecies of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax
traillii extimus) was listed as endangered in 1995. The southwestern
willow flycatcher is a bird less than 6 inches long with a grayish-
green back and wings, light grey to olive breast, whitish throat, and
pale yellowish belly. It nests in dense growths of trees and shrubs in
moist riparian ecosystems in the arid southwestern United States and
northern Mexico, and migrates to Central America and northern South
America for the fall and winter.
Threats:
FWS reports that habitat loss and predation are the primary threats to
this subspecies. There are three locations where a large proportion of
the subspecies breeds, all of which may be damaged by efforts to divert
water or tap into surrounding aquifers. Nest predation by avian,
reptilian, and mammalian predators also threatens the southwestern
willow flycatcher, but FWS officials say that it will not make recovery
impossible.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the southwestern willow flycatcher in
2002. FWS officials report that it took over 5 years to develop the
recovery plan due to the amount of biological information needed and
the amount of stakeholder involvement in the plan's development. The
recovery plan reflects the contributions of over 240 stakeholders in
seven states, including state and federal agencies, private landowners,
water management organizations, and about 15 Native American tribes.
The plan identifies the actions that biologists believe are important
for recovering the species, with habitat restoration being the most
critical action needed. FWS officials report that, fortunately,
flycatcher habitat can be developed and occupied quickly, and officials
expect this to aid in a relatively quick recovery of the species.
Although they are still early in the implementation of the recovery
plan and much work is needed, FWS is optimistic about recovery of the
species by 2020.
The flycatcher also benefits from being included in the Lower Colorado
River Multi-species Conservation Plan, which is a comprehensive plan
for more than 26 listed and unlisted species that occur in certain
areas in the lower Colorado River basin. Activities that are being
implemented or are planned under this conservation plan (fiscal year
2006 is the first full year of implementation of this plan) include
fish augmentation, research, monitoring, and habitat restoration.
Cost and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that such a wide array of stakeholders makes it
impossible to provide a cost estimate for the recovery efforts taken
for the southwestern willow flycatcher. FWS officials estimate that the
federal government pays about 60 percent of the total costs, state
agencies about 20 to 25 percent, and other entities about 15 percent.
They report that the top five types of expenditures are for annual
surveying and monitoring, land acquisition, habitat restoration,
research, and complying with legal requirements. FWS estimates that,
collectively, state agencies in Arizona, California, Colorado, New
Mexico, Nevada, and Utah have spent about $60 million on the
southwestern willow flycatcher since the subspecies was listed in 1995.
This includes annual expenses of slightly less than $1 million for
habitat improvement and about $1 million for surveying and monitoring
414 sites. FWS, other federal agencies, state agencies, and entities
seeking permits have spent about $44 million complying with legal
requirements, primarily associated with evaluating the effects of
projects on the species and its habitat, and, in some cases, reducing
and minimizing adverse effects the projects might have. BOR and the
U.S. Geological Survey have spent about $1 million on research. FWS
estimates that the flycatcher portion of the Lower Colorado River Multi-
species Conservation Plan will cost about $2.2 million per year.
Whooping Crane:
The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as endangered in 1967.
Whooping cranes weigh about 15 pounds and reach about 5 feet in height.
They require a wetlands habitat with water about 18 inches deep, such
as coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet
meadows, rivers, and agricultural fields. Whooping cranes live 20 to 30
years in the wild and up to 30 to 40 years in captivity, making them a
relatively long-lived species. Breeding pairs fledge chicks relatively
late in their lives--at about 5 to 7 years of age--and may only
successfully fledge 5 to 10 chicks during their lifetime. Breeding
pairs return to the same summer and winter nesting territories each
year.
The whooping crane's potential extinction was recognized as early as
the beginning of the twentieth century and, by 1941, there were only 15
or 16 known whooping cranes in the wild, all wintering in Texas.
Threats:
The crane's population decline was largely due to the hunting and
draining of wetlands to convert land for agriculture. FWS officials
report several continuing threats to the whooping crane, including
habitat loss along its migratory routes and in its Texas gulf coast
wintering area; development of power lines and wind turbines along its
migratory routes; declining populations of the crane's primary food
source, the blue crab; rising water levels in coastal Texas attributed
to global warming; and threats to water quality in the refuge wetlands
in Texas due to urban development and potential chemical spills.
Role of Recovery Plan:
Progress recovering the whooping crane is attributed to implementation
of recovery plan actions, as well as actions taken before the species
was even listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Specifically, several actions in the first half of the century helped
prevent the extinction of the whooping crane. Passage of the 1916
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ended legal hunting of the whooping crane;
and the creation of a national park in Canada in 1922 and a national
wildlife refuge in Texas in 1937 preserved essential habitat. However,
these actions were not sufficient to protect the crane from extinction
and it was eventually listed under the Endangered Species Act.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the whooping crane in 1980, revised it
in 1986 and 1994, and produced a new draft revision in 2005. Important
recovery plan actions include the breeding of cranes in captivity with
the intent to re-introduce the crane into the wild. Re-introducing the
crane in this way will establish multiple self-sustaining wild
populations. FWS officials report that implementing the recovery plan
is challenging because they do not have control over major threats such
as development, river flows, power line locations, and climate change.
However, FWS officials report that the status of the whooping crane is
improving, and attribute this improvement to the implementation of some
of the recovery plan's actions, including increasing the population and
providing additional protection at the species' summer and winter
habitats. FWS and the Canadian Wildlife Service are maintaining what is
believed to be an historic growth rate for the whooping crane--about
4.5 percent per year. FWS officials said that doing more to address
impacts from power lines along the crane's migratory routes is an
important action remaining to help with recovery, but that doing so is
resource-intensive.
Currently, there are three whooping crane populations in the wild and
seven populations in captivity. One wild population nests in Canada and
winters in Texas, another migrates between Wisconsin and Florida, and
the third is a non-migratory population that lives in Florida. As of
December 2005, the total population was estimated to be about 476
cranes: 341 in the wild and 135 in captivity. FWS is hopeful about
recovery of the species and expects to downlist the whooping crane from
endangered to threatened around 2035.
Costs and Partnerships:
The whooping crane recovery program is a joint effort between FWS and
the Canadian Wildlife Service. FWS officials estimate that about $82
million has been spent recovering the whooping crane between fiscal
years 1950 and 2005. However, this is likely an incomplete estimate
because of the numerous domestic and international government agencies
and private partners involved, including the Canadian government, the
International Crane Foundation, Operation Migration, the Platte River
Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust, the San Antonio Water System, the San
Antonio Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the U.S. Geological Survey, the
universities of Alberta and Florida, and Texas A&M University.
Officials stated that, in fiscal year 2005, the U.S. and Canadian
governments spent about $2.5 million, private entities spent about $1.2
million, and universities spent about $38,000 on recovery actions for
the crane. FWS officials stated that it costs about $1 million annually
to produce 25 whooping cranes in captivity, and that this expense has
been shared between government and nongovernmental entities.
Fishes:
Borax Lake Chub:
The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) was listed as endangered in 1980
by an emergency regulation and was listed on a non-emergency basis in
1982. The chub is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake, a natural 10-
acre lake fed by thermal springs that are situated atop large sodium-
borate deposits in Oregon.
Threats:
FWS reports that the initial primary threat to the Borax Lake chub was
habitat loss due to potential impact from geothermal energy development
and alteration of the lake's shoreline. However, an FWS review of the
chub in 2003 identified other threats to its water source.
Specifically, the aquifer that feeds Borax Lake may be at risk due to
groundwater pumping on private lands, and increased recreational use at
the lake poses a threat to the lake's water quality. Recreational use
such as off-highway vehicles, wading, camping, and boating, also
increases the potential for introducing invasive plants and animals
that may harm the chub. The chub is inherently vulnerable to
catastrophic loss due to its highly limited distribution and dependence
on a single water source.
Recovery Plan Role:
A recovery plan was approved for the Borax Lake chub in 1987. Key
actions called for by the recovery plan focus on protecting the lake
ecosystem, and include the acquisition of key private lands, protection
of subsurface waters, implementation of controls on human access,
removal of livestock grazing, and monitoring of the population. FWS
reports that, of these actions, the most significant that have been
implemented are BLM's designation of the land surrounding Borax Lake as
an Area of Critical Environmental Concern in 1983, The Nature
Conservancy's purchase of Borax Lake and the surrounding private lands
in 1993, The Nature Conservancy and BLM's elimination of grazing within
the critical habitat surrounding Borax Lake, and the completion of
numerous studies of the chub and other species that led to a better
understanding of the Borax Lake ecosystem. Additionally, a crucial
action for the species recovery that was external to the recovery plan
was the passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act of 2000, which withdrew public lands from mineral and
geothermal development within most of the area surrounding Borax Lake.
FWS reports that it has met many of the chub's recovery objectives over
the last two decades and that the species may be nearing recovery.
Actions needed to downlist the chub from endangered to threatened
include the development of a conservation agreement (or a memorandum of
understanding) between FWS, BLM, The Nature Conservancy, and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, to clarify roles and responsibilities
associated with the management of the chub and the Borax Lake
ecosystem. Other actions likely needed before delisting include (1)
assessing visitor use of Borax Lake; (2) eliminating inappropriate
vehicle and boat access to reduce the threat of invasive species; (3)
investigating the use of interpretive signs, boardwalks, and designated
observation sites to explain the unique and fragile features of the
ecosystem; (4) conducting additional research to determine the risks of
developing groundwater resources on private lands, public lands with
private subsurface rights, and (pending the results of additional
research) acquiring groundwater and/or surface rights as needed; and
(5) developing a contingency plan that would identify procedures,
needed equipment, and responsibilities for collecting fish in case of
an emergency.
Cost and Partnerships:
An FWS official reported that information on the implementation costs
of recovery actions, by agency or organization, is limited;
however, the official estimated that less than $50,000 has been spent
on the chub in the last decade. Over the last 5 years, FWS has spent
approximately $20,000 on recovery implementation, of which $5,000 was
used to assemble a scientific panel for a study of the status of the
Borax Lake chub and $15,000 was allocated for monitoring (and the
development of a long-term monitoring plan). Key partners in the chub's
recovery effort have been The Nature Conservancy, BLM, and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Colorado Pikeminnow:
The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), originally called the
Colorado squawfish, was listed as endangered in 1967. The Colorado
pikeminnow is the largest North American minnow; weights over 79 pounds
and lengths of almost 6 feet have been recorded. However, more
recently, specimens weighing more than 15 pounds have been rare.
Natural populations live in rivers in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah,
while hatchery-reared Colorado pikeminnow have been stocked in the Salt
and Verde Rivers in Arizona. The largest population of Colorado
pikeminnow is found in the Green River in Colorado and Utah, although
FWS officials report that this population declined from 3,100 in 2001
to 2,300 in 2003. The population in the Colorado River has been
increasing since estimates began in 1991.
Threats:
FWS officials report that the primary threats to the Colorado
pikeminnow are reduced water flow in rivers due to consumptive use,
stream flow regulation, and drought; hydromodification due to dams; and
competition with, and predation by, nonnative fish in their habitat.
Dams have fragmented rivers and blocked fish passages, while the
reservoirs formed by these dams were stocked for recreational fishing
with nonnative fishes that prey upon the Colorado pikeminnow and
compete with it for food.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Colorado pikeminnow in 1978 and
revised it in 1991; the plan was revised again in 2002 to include more
specific recovery goals. The Colorado pikeminnow is one of four fish
covered by both the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program.[Footnote 15] FWS officials report that management actions in
the recovery plan that address threats have been implemented,
successfully moving the pikeminnow towards recovery. Objectives for
downlisting the Colorado pikeminnow include maintaining a specified
number of naturally self-sustaining populations in two to three areas.
To meet these objectives, actions have been taken on all the major
rivers in the Upper Colorado River Basin (including the San Juan River
Basin); these actions include ensuring appropriate water flow and
quality, and controlling problematic nonnative fishes. FWS officials
report that the pikeminnow responds quickly to habitat improvements and
reproduces quickly; they hope to delist the species around 2015.
Costs and Partnerships:
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program track expenditures for
the Colorado pikeminnow, the razorback sucker, the bonytail, and the
humpback chub together, so costs specific to Colorado pikeminnow
recovery are not available.[Footnote 16] Both programs are funded
primarily by power revenues from the Colorado River Storage Project and
long-term cost sharing between the four participating states--Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.[Footnote 17] FWS is one of many program
partners, including other federal agencies; Native American tribes; and
private entities like the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association, the Colorado Water Congress, the Utah Water Users
Association, The Nature Conservancy, and Western Resource Advocates.
From fiscal years 1989 through 2006, the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program spent more than $161 million on
endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided more than $20 million.
From fiscal years 1992 through 2006, the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program spent more than $34.6 million on endangered fish
recovery, of which FWS provided more than $1.6 million.
Razorback Sucker:
The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) was listed as endangered in
1991. It grows to about 2.5 feet in length and weighs less than 7
pounds. In the mid 1970s, less than 100 adult razorback suckers were
estimated to live in the middle Green River in Colorado and Utah.
Currently, it is found in small numbers in rivers in Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah, with the largest concentration in Lake
Mojave.
Threats:
FWS officials report that the biggest threats to the razorback sucker
are stream flow regulation in rivers, habitat modifications,
competition and predation by nonnative fish stocked for recreational
fishing, pesticides, and pollution.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the razorback sucker in 1998 and
amended it in 2002 to include more specific goals. The razorback sucker
is one of four fish the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
are working to recover.[Footnote 18] FWS officials report that
management actions in the recovery plan are being implemented and have
been important to recovery progress made for the species. These actions
include efforts to expand existing populations and establish new ones,
ensure appropriate water flow and quality, control problematic
nonnative fishes, acquire and protect floodplain habitat, minimize the
risk of hazardous-materials spills in critical habitat areas, and
minimize the threat of hybridization with the white sucker.
Reintroducing hatchery-produced razorback suckers has been the
foundation for successfully reestablishing self-sustaining populations
of the species in several Colorado and Utah rivers. For example,
population surveys have found the number of fish increased from about
100 in the mid-1970s to about 2,700 in the early 2000s. FWS officials
report that they anticipate delisting the species around 2025.
Costs and Partnerships:
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program track expenditures for
the razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, and humpback chub
together, so costs specific to the razorback sucker recovery are not
available.[Footnote 19] Both programs are funded primarily by revenues
from the Colorado River Storage Project, and long-term cost sharing
between the four participating states--Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming.[Footnote 20] FWS is one of many program partners, including
other federal agencies; Native American tribes; and private sector
entities like the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, the
Colorado Water Congress, the Utah Water Users Association, The Nature
Conservancy, and Western Resource Advocates. From fiscal year 1989
through 2006, the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
spent more than $161 million on endangered fish recovery, of which FWS
provided more than $20 million. For fiscal years 1992 through 2006, the
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program spent more than
$34.6 million on endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided more
than $1.6 million.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow:
The Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) was listed as
endangered in 1994. The minnow is a 4-inch long silver and white fish
that historically lived throughout the Rio Grande River basin in New
Mexico and Texas. When listed, it occupied only 5 percent of its
historic range--a 187-mile area of the Rio Grande River in New Mexico-
-and had been completely extirpated from the Pecos River and downstream
portions of the Rio Grande River.
Threats:
FWS officials cite habitat modification as the primary threat to the
species, which they attribute to several causes, such as stream
modification and channelization; regulation of river flow to provide
water for agricultural and industrial uses; diminished water quality
caused by municipal, industrial, and agricultural discharges; and
competition with or predation by introduced nonnative fish species. FWS
traces the decline of the silvery minnow all the way back to 1916, when
Elephant Butte Dam, one of five dams constructed within the minnow's
habitat, closed its gates. Nonnative fish species that were stocked
into the reservoirs created by the dams often completely eliminated
native fish species. Droughts have also posed problems for the species,
as in 1996, when 30 miles of river went dry.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Rio Grande silvery minnow in 1999
and is currently revising it. It is scheduled to be complete in 2006
and will continue many of the actions in the current plan. FWS
officials report that the most successful recovery actions for the
minnow, which are all included in the current recovery plan, are
cooperative water management, habitat restoration, and captive
propagation and release of minnows--over 600,000 silvery minnows have
been released into the wild since 2002. Another critical action in the
recovery plan includes efforts to establish habitat and re-establish
minnow populations outside its current range in the Rio Grande River.
FWS has initiated processes to establish an experimental population in
Big Bend National Park in Texas. FWS hopes to finalize these processes
by the fall of 2007 and begin stocking fish in Big Bend in the spring
of 2008. FWS officials estimate the minnow will be delisted around
2030, but this is contingent on continued successful reintroduction of
the species.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that they cannot provide comprehensive recovery
cost estimates for the silvery minnow because of the large number of
partners involved. However, FWS officials report that the Middle Rio
Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program and BOR have spent the
most on recovery actions since 2001--about $28 million and $11 million,
respectively. Other expenditures for recovery actions for the minnow
include about $500,000 by FWS and $5 million by the Interstate Stream
Commission in New Mexico. The collaborative program is a partnership of
20 organizations, including the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish,
the Corps, the Interstate Stream Commission, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. The program is focused on protecting and improving the status
of endangered species along the Middle Rio Grande River including the
Southwestern willow flycatcher (another listed species we reviewed for
this report). These two species benefit from actions to restore water
flows and habitat.
Snails:
Magazine Mountain Shagreen:
The Magazine Mountain shagreen (Mesodon magazinensis) was listed as
threatened in 1989. The shagreen is a brown or buff-colored snail about
one-half inch wide and less than one-half inch high. It is known to
live only in rock debris along the base of cliffs on the north and west
slopes of Mount Magazine in the Ozark National Forest in western
Arkansas.
Threats:
FWS officials cite the potential for habitat loss as the greatest
threat to the shagreen because it relies on a single, highly unique
habitat. Threats to the species when it was listed included a proposal
by the Department of Defense, which would have brought heavy military
equipment into the shagreen's habitat, and the development of a state
park on Mount Magazine. Today, the species remains vulnerable to
catastrophic events, such as wildfire, which could completely destroy
its habitat.
Role of Recovery Plan:
The two primary threats to the snail when it was listed were mitigated
by actions that were outside of the recovery plan for the species.
Specifically, the Forest Service designated Mount Magazine as a
"special interest area," which affords protection to the species by
prohibiting certain activities such as timber harvesting and the use of
herbicides and pesticides. The Department of Defense withdrew its
proposal for military operations in the area because it conflicted with
the Forest Service's land management plan for the area. In addition,
FWS participated in the preparation of an environmental impact
statement for the development of the proposed state park, which led to
a memorandum of understanding between FWS, the Forest Service, and the
Arkansas State Parks agency. The memorandum of understanding ensures
protection of the species during the development of the park.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the shagreen in 1994 and, with its
partners, has implemented most of the actions. Two of the important
recovery tasks in the plan were (1) the Forest Service's monitoring of
the shagreen population for 10 years--which is almost complete--and (2)
FWS, the Forest Service, and the State of Arkansas entering into a
memorandum of agreement to share in recovery efforts and protection of
the species. Additional recovery actions that have been important for
the species include better planning in regards to prescribed fires,
timber harvests, and use of chemical fire retardants within the
shagreen habitat. These actions were not included in FWS's recovery
plan, but were part of the Forest Service's Ozark National Forest
Management Plan and the special interest area designation of Mount
Magazine. Additionally, FWS and the Forest Service have held numerous
informal consultations on fire management, and are developing a new
method of monitoring overall forest health that would include
monitoring other snails that inhabit the forest floor as surrogates for
the shagreen. Although Forest Service surveys show that the population
appears to be stable, it remains listed because funding for the
research needed to delist it had not been available until this year.
FWS reports that it may be able to delist the species by 2010.
Costs and Partnerships:
According to an FWS official, the Forest Service estimates that the
cost to monitor the Magazine Mountain shagreen has been about $1,000
per year for the last 9 years. This constitutes at least 75 percent of
the total amount of funds the Forest Service has spent to recover the
shagreen. The other 25 percent of Forest Service costs were for
supporting actions, such as revising the land management plan for the
area and developing land management standards to protect the shagreen.
The proposed biological research needed to support delisting the
species will cost about $90,000. FWS, the Forest Service, and the
University of Arkansas have recently committed about $30,000 each to
this effort. Research is planned to begin in the summer of 2006 and
will take about 3 years to complete.
Insects:
Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly:
The Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema) was discovered
and identified as a new species in 1978, and listed as endangered in
1991. The Uncompahgre fritillary has rust-brown wings crisscrossed with
black bars, and a 1-inch wingspan. Its habitat range is one of the
smallest of North American butterfly species--patches of snow willow
plants in alpine meadows above 12,000 feet, on northeast facing slopes,
in the San Juan Mountains of southern Colorado. Two Uncompahgre
fritillary butterfly colonies were initially found on Mount Uncompahgre
and Redcloud Peak.
Threats:
An FWS official reports that the greatest threats to the Uncompahgre
fritillary butterfly are humans trying to collect it; and trampling of
its larvae by humans and livestock. In addition, changes in climate,
such as hotter or drier weather, may be responsible for observed
decreases in butterfly populations in certain years.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the Uncompahgre fritillary
butterfly in March 1994. The plan calls for 10 colonies of butterflies
to be stable for 10 years before the species can be delisted. Tasks in
the recovery plan that have helped improve the species' status include
enforcing restrictions on collection; searching for new colonies;
monitoring population status and climatic trends; and researching
habitat requirements, threats, and propagation. Monitoring has
identified nine additional colonies in the San Juan Mountains that
appear to be stable. The colonies were found entirely on BLM and Forest
Service land. To prevent collection and trampling of the species, the
Forest Service and BLM erected signs to serve as notice to collection
prohibitions and modified trails to divert hikers and livestock away
from butterfly colonies. According to the FWS official, collectors are
generally dissuaded by the signs and the presence of researchers in the
area. Additionally, research has led to a better understanding of the
species' habitat needs. FWS officials said that they may be able to
delist the species around 2015.
Costs and Partnerships:
According to an FWS official, about $40,000 was spent in fiscal year
2003 for recovery activities for this species--about $9,000 by FWS;
$13,000 by the Forest Service, and $18,000 by BLM--primarily for
research and monitoring. Three national forests have been involved in
these efforts: the Gunnison National Forest has provided about $7,000
annually for at least the past 10 years, the Rio Grande National Forest
has provided about $1,500 annually for the past 4 years, and the San
Juan National Forest has provided about $1,000 annually for the past 2
years. BLM provides about $3,000 annually for research and monitoring,
and has incurred additional costs for researchers' housing, trail
maintenance, signage, and staff time. Additionally, the FWS official to
whom we spoke estimates that, since 1991, FWS has spent about $9,000
annually for staff time and for a vehicle to access butterfly habitat.
Crustaceans:
Socorro Isopod:
The Socorro isopod (Thermosphaeroma thermophilum) was listed as
endangered in 1978. The isopod is a freshwater crustacean about 4 to 13
millimeters long with a flattened, segmented body, seven pairs of legs,
antennae on the head, and oar-like extensions on its last segment. It
survives in warm water with a very narrow range of temperature and
salinity. It is endemic to the outflow of Sedillo Spring, a thermal
spring found near the base of the Socorro Mountains in New Mexico. The
Socorro isopod is of particular scientific interest because it is one
of only two freshwater isopods in the primarily marine sphaeromidae
family.
Threats:
FWS reports that the potential for habitat loss is the greatest threat
to the Socorro isopod given its narrow habitat requirements and
restricted distribution. The spring that the species depends on has
been modified since the early 1900s, when a bathhouse was built to take
advantage of its warm water. In addition, the aquifer that supplies
water to the spring could be lost or degraded due to drought and/or
human uses. The water rights to the spring and the bathhouse are
privately owned, and there is no long-term conservation agreement with
the property owner to protect the species.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Socorro isopod in 1982. FWS
reports that they have completed all planned recovery actions deemed
critical to the Socorro isopod's survival that are within their
capabilities. These include stablizing and protecting the populations
and their habitats, including a more secure water flow; and conducting
additional research and monitoring. However, even before a recovery
plan was in place for the isopod, an essential action was implemented
that proved critical to the species' survival. Specifically, captive
populations were established in 1977 in order to protect the species
against extinction. These populations saved this species when, in
August 1988, tree roots blocked the spring's flow and the wild
population of Socorro isopods became extinct. After the spring's flow
was restored in September 1988, isopods from the captive populations
were reintroduced. The threat of extinction of this species was further
mitigated in 1990, when Socorro isopods from the native and captive
populations were introduced into a new facility called the Socorro
Isopod Propagation Facility. This facility consists of eight cement
tanks located in a secure area one-half mile north of the bathhouse,
and is fed by water from the same spring. The population at this
facility has been monitored monthly since November 1994, and FWS
reports that it is stable.
However, FWS has yet to obtain a long-term conservation agreement with
the private landowner although the landowner has taken steps to protect
the bathhouse and spring. FWS reports that the lack of an agreement
means that the wild population will likely remain susceptible to
extirpation for the foreseeable future. As a result, it is unlikely
that the Socorro isopod will ever be delisted, although it may
eventually be downlisted.
Cost and Partnerships:
FWS reports that the Socorro isopod has been an inexpensive species to
protect. One of the highest expenditures was $29,000 to build the
propagation facility in 1989. Most of the recovery and maintenance
costs have been funded with Section 6 grants to the state of New
Mexico. Partners in the recovery efforts include FWS, the New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish, the cities of Albuquerque and Socorro, and
the private owner of the water rights and bathhouse at Sedillo Spring.
Plants:
Ash Meadows Gumplant, Ash Meadows Sunray, and Spring-Loving Centaury:
Three plants--the Ash Meadows gumplant (Grindelia fraxino-pratensis),
the Ash Meadows sunray (Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata), and the
spring-loving centaury (Centaurium namophilum)--were listed as
threatened at the same time in 1985. Ash Meadows is a 50,000-acre
region of desert uplands and spring-fed oasis in the Mojave Desert that
straddles the California-Nevada border. FWS manages about one half of
this area as the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The Ash Meadows
gumplant and spring-loving centaury are wetlands plants with similar
habitat needs, while the Ash Meadows sunray is an upland plant that
requires a much drier environment. The gumplant has yellow flowers and
is a biennial or perennial that lives along streams and pools. The
centaury has pink flowers and is an annual plant that occurs on moist
to wet clay soils. The sunray has yellow flowers and is a perennial
plant that occurs only in saline soil and limestone outcroppings in
Nevada.
Threats:
FWS officials report that the primary threats to the three plants, at
the time they were listed, were development and water diversion that
would have resulted from a planned resort community in the Ash Meadows
region. An additional threat specific to the sunray was trampling by
cattle and horses, and now this species is threatened by potential
mineral development. Currently, the primary threat to the centaury and
gumplant is from invasive plants. Five thousand acres of the wildlife
refuge were agricultural lands that went fallow, and invasive species
began to expand in the area. One species, the Russian knapweed, is a
particular threat to the centaury and gumplant because its woody stalks
increase the likelihood of wildfires.
Role of Recovery Plan:
The threat of development and water diversion to all three plants was
eliminated when The Nature Conservancy purchased 12,654 acres in Ash
Meadows; it was later sold to FWS to establish the Ash Meadows National
Wildlife Refuge in 1984. Grazing was removed from the refuge in 1985.
These actions occurred prior to FWS approving a recovery plan for the
three Ash Meadow species, and nine others, in 1990. Recovery plan
objectives include collecting basic information about the species and
securing land and water rights. Land management activities essential to
the species' recovery are carried out by FWS and BLM. Almost all of
BLM's land is within the refuge and therefore managed by FWS. BLM also
owns land surrounding the refuge and designated it as an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern, which provides protection for the fish
and wildlife resources occurring there.
These actions have been important for improving the outlook for the
species, but FWS officials cannot estimate a recovery date for the
centaury and gumplant because they are unsure how to control the
invasive plants that threaten the species. In addition, while they
report that they believe the sunray is abundant, delisting is precluded
because much of its habitat remains open to clay mineral extraction.
Although FWS has acquired some of the mineral rights in the clay
deposits, other lands remain open to mineral development.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials report they cannot provide a recovery cost estimate for
these three species because most of the recovery actions also help
other species in the area. They report that the largest expense, by
far, has been the acquisition of land and water rights. FWS operations
and maintenance for the refuge are the second largest expense while
stream restoration is a distant third, although FWS plans to increase
these efforts.
Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf:
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) was listed as
threatened in 1989. This plant species is usually no more than 6 inches
tall and has dark, leathery, heart-shaped evergreen leaves, and beige
to dark brown jug-shaped flowers. It occurs in a small portion of the
upper piedmont region of North Carolina and South Carolina, where it
grows in streamside habitats and acidic soil on bluffs and adjacent
slopes. At the time of listing, there were about 23 known populations
in eight counties.
Threats:
At the time of listing, threats to the species were residential and
industrial development, conversion of habitat to pasture or small
ponds, timber harvesting, and cattle grazing. FWS officials report that
residential and industrial development is now by far the primary threat
to the species. Most dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are located
on private property or in public utility and transportation corridors-
-areas that are being developed at much higher rates than when the
species was listed. More than one half of the known populations were
discovered during environmental reviews for proposed development
projects, and FWS officials report that many of these populations have
been at least partially impacted by these developments. The
introduction and spread of riparian invasive plant species is also a
threat.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS has not approved a recovery plan for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
The agency developed a draft in association with a status review in
1997, but because of the information gained during the review--
including the discovery of new populations and concerns the recovery
partners raised about taxonomy--the plan was never finalized. While
found to be more abundant than originally thought (surveys have more
than tripled the number of known populations and expanded the species
distribution to 16 counties), the species was not proposed for
downlisting after the 1997 review because some partners raised concerns
as to whether or not the species' survival could be assured, given that
the majority of known populations occur in a region of increasing
development pressure. Partners expressing concerns included the North
Carolina Plant Conservation Program, the North Carolina's Natural
Heritage Program, university botanists, and consultants; these partners
also raised questions about the taxonomy of the species, as well as the
identification of the species at some of the known sites.
Although the current population estimates indicate that the species has
the potential to be delisted, additional steps are needed to mitigate
development. According to FWS officials, to address this threat, FWS
first needs to determine which of the many populations are critical to
the species' continued survival, and whether they are stable. Once
those populations are identified, FWS would then need to obtain
agreements from landowners or acquire land to ensure continued
protection. FWS officials would like to quantify rates of habitat loss
by examining available development indicators, such as building
permits, but have not obtained sufficient funding to do so.
FWS initiated another status review in 2004 to determine whether the
species continued to warrant protection under the Endangered Species
Act. If the review finds that the species still warrants protection
under the act, FWS will propose recovery criteria, including specific
actions for different locations and estimated costs. FWS expects to
pursue delisting the heartleaf by 2015, pending the results of the
status review. FWS officials believe they can carry out any needed
steps for this species without a recovery plan.
Costs and Partnerships:
Despite not having a final recovery plan, FWS works with other federal
agencies, state agencies, and private organizations to address existing
threats to the species. FWS officials could not estimate costs to
recover this species, but said that most recovery actions have been
funded through expenditures on Section 7 consultations. FWS has
completed several consultations with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Transportation, and associated state agencies, that have resulted in
protections for some populations of the heartleaf. Monitoring and
management programs are still being developed for many of these sites.
Other partners that have assisted FWS in surveying and monitoring dwarf-
flowered heartleaf populations include the North Carolina Plant
Conservation Program, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
university botanists, and consultants.
Eggert's Sunflower:
Eggert's Sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) was listed as threatened in
1997. Eggert's sunflower grows in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee at
the interface of woodlands and grassy openings. It thrives in tree
stands with little woody understory, and tolerates a wide range of
light conditions, moisture levels, and disturbance. It persists in, and
may even invade, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, and fields that
have suitable open habitat. The species was delisted in 2005 due to
recovery and the discovery of additional populations.
Threats:
FWS officials report that threats to Eggert's sunflower at the time of
listing included: (1) fire suppression, because the species relies on
periodic fires to maintain suitable habitat; (2) loss of habitat due to
development; (3) invasion by nonnative plant species; (4) habitat
impacts from maintenance of roadsides and power lines, such as
herbicide spraying and mowing; and (5) herbivory, including by insects
and white-tailed deer.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for Eggert's sunflower in 1999. The plan's
actions included prescribing fires, rescheduling mowing for road and
power-line maintenance to times when it is less likely to harm the
species, surveying the species, researching genetics, and establishing
new populations. Officials report that the recovery plan accurately
identified management actions necessary to recover this species, and
noted that the species responded well to these actions. At the time of
delisting, 20 geographically distinct, self-sustaining populations had
been protected by conservation agreements.
Costs and Partnerships:
Post-delisting activities include the monitoring of the 20 populations,
under conservation agreements with public and private landowners,
including Arnold Air Force Base, Mammoth Cave National Park, the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the City of Nashville, The Nature
Conservancy, and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. FWS officials
could not estimate the cost of this species' recovery, but estimated
that the federal government has provided about 80 percent of the cost,
while state agencies and private entities contributed the remaining 20
percent. FWS managed and coordinated the recovery efforts, so its costs
include salaries for coordination, field work, and surveys.
Johnston's Frankenia:
Johnston's frankenia (Frankenia johnstonii) was listed as endangered in
1984. The plant is a grayish or bluish-green low-lying shrub with small
leaves and white flowers, and turns bright red in the fall. At the time
of the listing, there were five known populations in two south Texas
counties and in Mexico, with an estimated total of 1,500 individual
plants. However, a 6-year study of this species resulted in the
discovery of about 9 million plants in 58 populations in the United
States and four populations in Mexico. FWS proposed delisting the
species in 2003 and anticipates finalizing the delisting in 2006. FWS
officials attribute the lengthy delisting process to the lack of staff-
-the lead botanist for the species resigned about 2 years ago and has
not been replaced.
Threats:
FWS officials report that they initially believed the primary threats
to Johnston's frankenia were its low numbers, low reproductive
potential, narrow range, and habitat modification by land management
practices that included overgrazing, root plowing, and planting non-
native grasses. However, at the time of the listing, limited data were
available for this species, partially because the species occurs
primarily on privately owned land that was not readily accessible;
also, little focused research had been conducted on the species.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for Johnston's frankenia in
1988, and attribute the proposed delisting to the achievement of the
recovery plan's goals. A key task in the recovery plan was educating
landowners and gaining their cooperation in order to allow study and
monitoring of the species (through voluntary agreements) on private
land. A botanist with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spent 2
years building trust and establishing working relationships with
landowners, and an additional 4 years on monitoring research. This work
led to the discovery of millions of other plants. Other important
recovery tasks included conducting studies on the species' ecology and
reproduction. Some of these studies revealed that, while the species'
reproductive potential is lower than many flowering plant species, the
frankenia appears to be adapted to the arid climate and saline soils it
inhabits, and can use sporadic rainfall to germinate quickly.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that recovery efforts for Johnston's frankenia
have cost over $250,000. FWS estimated its expenditures at about
$200,000; the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spent about $30,000;
The Nature Conservancy spent about $4,000; and Texas State University
spent about $20,000. FWS contracted with Texas State University to
complete three recovery tasks: (1) reproductive biology studies; (2)
ecological studies, including analyses of soil and the effects of land
management practices; and (3) a geographical information system project
to assess threats to the species.
Papery Whitlow-Wort:
The papery whitlow-wort (Paronychia chartacea) was listed as threatened
in 1987 and, at the time, was only known to inhabit south-central
peninsular Florida. In 1991, a new subspecies (Paronychia chartacea
minima) was discovered in the Florida panhandle; this subspecies is
also considered as threatened under the 1987 listing action. The papery
whitlow-wort is a short-lived herb with yellowish green branches and
small cream-colored to greenish colored flowers. It grows close to the
ground and forms small mats in disturbed, open, sandy sites such as
road rights-of-way, recently cleared high pineland areas, fire lanes,
and trails.
Threats:
FWS officials report that the primary threat to the papery whitlow-wort
is habitat loss due to residential, industrial, and commercial
(including citrus) development.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the papery whitlow-wort and
18 other Florida scrub and high pineland plant species in June 1996.
The recovery actions identified in the recovery plan were primarily
additional monitoring and protection of habitat. The south-central
Florida subspecies may soon be delisted because land needed to
accommodate this species was acquired or protected, and needed
prescribed fire plans were implemented in 2000. Delisting the south-
central Florida subspecies is pending, due to a lack of funding and
FWS's evaluation of an upcoming study on the status of numerous Florida
plant species (including the papery whitlow-wort). FWS officials report
that they hope to delist the plant by 2010.
FWS officials report that the remaining efforts to delist the Florida
panhandle subspecies include reviewing land management agencies'
prescribed fire plans and practices for actions that could potentially
harm the papery whitlow-wort. FWS officials said that the species has
benefited from some conservation efforts, but it is not nearly as close
to delisting as the central Florida subspecies.
Cost and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that FWS recovery expenditures for the papery
whitlow-wort have been minimal--about $19,000 from fiscal years 2001
through 2003. FWS did not have recovery expenditure data from its
partners. The species has benefited from state funding and Section 6
funds to recover several other endangered species that share its
habitat and are included in the multi-species recovery plan. Partners
in recovery efforts for the papery whitlow-wort include the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Florida Division of
Forestry, The Nature Conservancy, the Archbold Biological Station, and
Princeton University (which is conducting the study on Floridian plant
species). These partners have worked on restoration of the natural
habitat, fire management, surveying, and demographic research.
Truckee Barberry:
The Truckee barberry (Berberis sonnei) was listed as endangered in
1979. The plant is a small evergreen shrub originally thought to exist
only near the Truckee River in California. However, a 1993 study
reclassified the plant and included it as part of a much more prevalent
species. The Truckee barberry was delisted in 2003.
Threats:
The threat, at the time of listing, was that only one known Truckee
barberry population existed. This population was located on private
property.
Role of Recovery Plan:
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Truckee barberry in 1984. The
objectives included protecting the only known population, surveying for
other populations, and establishing new ones. Additionally, because FWS
had only limited information on this plant's biology, the plan included
actions for genetics research to clarify the relationship of the
species to similar species, like the Berberis repens. These steps were
critical to determining that the species was not unique but rather a
part of a more common species.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS only had expenditure information for the delisting process, which
took 3 years and about $33,000.
Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus:
The Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) was listed as
threatened in 1979. The Uinta Basin hookless cactus is a spherical to
cylindrical, spiny succulent that commonly grows from 2 to 3 inches in
diameter and 2 to 6 inches in height. It occurs on rocky surfaces on
river terrace deposits and lower mesa slopes between elevations of
4,500 to 6,000 feet along the upper Colorado and Gunnison Rivers in
western Colorado, and the Green River in northeast Utah. At the time of
listing, FWS reported that there were approximately 15,000 individual
plants.
Threats:
FWS officials report that the primary threat to the Uinta Basin
hookless cactus is the demand for energy development in its habitat,
which is primarily BLM land and the Uinta and Ouray reservations of the
Northern Ute Tribe. According to the recovery plan, demand for energy
development increased dramatically around the time the species was
listed in 1979, and then decreased by 1990 when the recovery plan was
issued. However, FWS officials said that the demand has increased again
over the last several years, and that significant oil and gas
development is in progress;additional development within the species
habitat is pending. Additional threats include other development for
highways, housing, and commercial purposes; recreation; and trampling
by livestock. The species is a desirable horticultural specimen and, as
such, is illegally collected.
Recovery Plan Role:
FWS approved the Uinta Basin hookless cactus recovery plan in 1990.
However, according to FWS officials, the recovery plan has not been
fully implemented because it competes with many other species for
funding. Needed actions outlined in the recovery plan include achieving
a total population of 30,000 individuals, with at least 2,000
individuals in a minimum of six separate populations; protecting land
to provide for long-term, undisturbed habitat; and conducting taxonomic
studies on the species. However, FWS officials stated that funding
levels have only allowed for completing a taxonomic study. FWS
officials report they have been involved in Section 7 consultations
with BLM concerning oil and gas leases affecting the cactus, and there
have been adverse effect determinations. FWS officials are currently
working with BLM and oil and gas companies to minimize the loss of
cacti due to energy development in its habitat. FWS officials report
that the cactus could be delisted in 10 to 20 years, assuming adequate
funding is received and habitat protection measures are implemented.
Costs and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that they cannot provide an accurate recovery cost
estimate because comprehensive cost data do not exist. FWS estimated
that, for the last 2 years, its field offices in Utah and Colorado have
spent between $30,000 and $40,000 annually on the Uinta Basin hookless
cactus and other plant species in the area, mostly for Section 7
consultations with BLM and monitoring. FWS has also worked, on a
limited basis, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and some conservation
groups, but did not have any expenditure information for those
entities.
Virginia Round-Leaf Birch:
The Virginia round-leaf birch (Betula uber) was listed as endangered in
1978 and downlisted to threatened in 1994. It was the first tree
protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Virginia round-leaf
birch grows to about 40 feet tall and has dark bark and distinctive
rounded leaves. It lives for about 50 years, and produces large
quantities of seeds about every 5 years--a survival strategy that
discourages seed eaters. The birch needs continually moist, well-
drained mineral-rich soil that is largely free of debris so seeds can
reach the ground and germinate. It also needs open forest canopies to
allow seedlings to get sunlight. The species was thought to be extinct
until 1975, when 41 trees were discovered in the Cressy Creek area of
Smyth County in southwestern Virginia.
Threats:
FWS officials report that most of the Virginia round-leaf birch
population occurs on Forest Service land and that the primary threats
to the species when it was listed were its reproductive characteristics
and distinct habitat needs. For example, studies have shown that seed
viability is significantly lower in the round-leaf birch than in other
dark-bark birches in the Cressy Creek area. Reproduction is also
limited by long distances between pollen sources. Periodic droughts and
floods, and herbivory (mostly by deer and rabbits), are also threats.
Additionally, in the 1980s, vandalism by collectors led to the loss of
numerous individual trees--10 of the original 41 trees, 30 seedlings
that had grown as a result of Forest Service recovery actions, and 81
greenhouse seedlings grown by the National Arboretum. FWS officials
report that the Virginia round-leaf birch does not currently have any
imminent threats, however, due to its limited geographic range, it
faces challenges such as drought and occasional flooding.
Role of Recovery Plan:
Most of the Virginia round-leaf birch population is located in the
Jefferson National Forest in southwestern Virginia. According to FWS
officials, the Forest Service approved a management plan for the
Virginia round-leaf birch in 1976, and FWS approved a recovery plan in
1982 with revisions in 1985 and 1990. FWS reported that several actions
in the recovery plan have been especially effective for recovering the
species--creating small openings in the canopy to allow sunlight to
reach seedlings, removing plant debris from around the existing trees
to allow their seeds to reach the soil and germinate, enclosing all the
trees with chicken wire to protect them from herbivory, and, to stop
vandalism by collectors, growing several trees in captivity and
distributing seedlings to the public. Some actions taken by the Forest
Service have also been important for the species, and were taken before
the recovery plan was in place. Specifically, the Forest Service fenced
the two mature trees that occurred in the Jefferson National Forest and
conducted soil disturbance activities to encourage seed germination.
FWS is awaiting the results of a status review of the species, which
should be complete in 2006, before pursuing delisting. FWS hopes to
begin the delisting process in the next 2 to 3 years for the species
and have it delisted by about 2015.
Cost and Partnerships:
FWS officials report that they cannot provide a cost estimate for
recovery expenditures because most of the recovery activities were
completed in the 1980s and much of the documentation is no longer
available. The Forest Service and the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, which listed the species as
endangered at the state level in 1979, have led recovery efforts. The
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services provided funding for
cultivation of birch seedlings for distribution to arboreta, botanical
gardens, and the public. Other partners include the National Arboretum,
which coordinated the distribution of seedlings to the public; various
conservation organizations; universities; and private entities.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, DC 20240:
Aug 14 2005:
Ms. Robin M. 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: Many Factors Affect the
Length of Time to Recover Select Species," GAO-06-730, dated July 12,
2006. In general, we agree with the findings.
The enclosure provides comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. We hope these comments will assist you in preparing the final
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
Enclosure:
[End of Section]
(360704):
FOOTNOTES
[1] A recovery plan is not required if the Secretaries of Commerce or
the Interior find that such a plan will not promote the conservation of
the species.
[2] Both domestic and foreign species are listed under the Endangered
Species Act;
foreign species are those with current and historic ranges that occur
entirely under the jurisdiction of other countries.
[3] GAO, Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species
Are Largely Unknown, GAO-06-463R (Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2006).
[4] A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a
species for purposes of listing under the Endangered Species Act. See
61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996).
[5] See GAO, Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term
Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program, GAO-
03-23 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2002) and GAO, Columbia River Basin
Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery Responsibilities,
Expenditures and Actions, GAO-02-612 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2002).
[6] A species may also be downlisted from endangered to threatened as a
result of recovery efforts. The services must announce downlisting
proposals in the Federal Register to solicit public comments on the
action.
[7] FWS reports that 2 of the 17 species delisted due to recovery were
delisted because of a combination of recovery efforts and data error.
[8] The act requires that the services conduct reviews of all the
species protected by the act every 5 years to determine whether the
species should be delisted, or whether the species' status should
change from endangered to threatened, or vice versa.
[9] See FWS, Recovery Report to Congress, Fiscal Years 2001-2002.
[10] See FWS, Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species
Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003.
[11] See GAO, Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term
Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program, GAO-
03-23 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2002) and GAO, Columbia River Basin
Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery Responsibilities,
Expenditures and Actions, GAO-02-612 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2002).
[12] A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as
a species for purposes of listing under the Endangered Species Act. See
61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996).
[13] A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes
of listing, is treated as a species under the Endangered Species Act.
See 61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996).
[14] This listing was amended in 1970 to include the Antillean
subspecies (T. m. manatus). Within the jurisdiction of the United
States, Antillean manatees are found in Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and occasionally in Texas. There are two separate recovery
plans for the West Indian manatee, one for the Florida subspecies and
another for the Antillean subspecies in Puerto Rico.
[15] These programs also address the razorback sucker, which is another
species we reviewed for this report.
[16] Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program: Program Highlights 2005-
2006 provides a summary of the programs, including a complete list of
partners, total costs for implementing various elements of the
programs, and detailed status information on the four species.
[17] The Colorado River Storage Project is a multipurpose plan,
undertaken by BOR in 1956, to control the flow of the upper Colorado
and its tributaries, and to aid in the development of the upper
Colorado River basin. Since the flow of the Colorado is erratic, this
project was needed to maintain an even flow of water to the lower basin
during dry years. A series of dams regulates stream flow, provides
storage reservoirs, creates hydroelectric power, and irrigates both new
and previously developed acreage.
[18] These programs also address the Colorado pikeminnow, which is
another species we reviewed for this report.
[19] See footnote 4 for details.
[20] See footnote 5 for details.
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:
