    Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses
    Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to
    Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions (06-APR-05,
    GAO-05-211).

    Currently there are more than 1,260 species listed as endangered
    or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While few
    species have gone extinct since 1973, only 9 have been
    "recovered" or removed from the list because they no longer need
    the act's protection. This has raised questions about how the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) allocates its recovery
    funds. Proponents of the act believe that the Service's recovery
    funds are only a small fraction of what is needed to make greater
    recovery progress. The act and agency guidelines require the
    Service to prioritize species to guide recovery fund allocation.
    In fiscal year 2000 through 2003, the Service spent $127 million
    dollars in recovery funds attributable to individual species. In
    this report, GAO analyzed (1) the extent to which the Service's
    allocation of recovery funds compares with its recovery priority
    guidelines and (2) what factors influence the Service's recovery
    allocation decisions.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-211
        ACCNO:   A20857
      TITLE:     Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally
    Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to
    Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions
         DATE:   04/06/2005
      SUBJECT:   Allocation (Budget Act)
    	     Budget administration
    	     Endangered species
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Federal funds
    	     Funds management
    	     Wildlife conservation
    	     Conservation
    	     Natural resources
    	     Wilderness areas
    	     Policies and procedures
    	     Endangered Species Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-05-211

    United States Government Accountability Office

      GAO	Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives

    April 2005

    ENDANGERED SPECIES

     Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority
            Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions

                                           a

    GAO-05-211

    [IMG]

    April 2005

    ENDANGERED SPECIES

    Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority
    Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions

                                     What GAO Found

    The Service spent its recovery funds in a manner generally consistent with
    species priority in fiscal years 2000 through 2003, spending almost half
    (44 percent) of the $127 million on the highest priority species (see
    figure below). Species in the next two highest priority groups received
    almost all of the remaining recovery funds (51 percent). Species in the
    three lowest priority groups received very little funding (6 percent).
    Most listed species (92 percent) are in the top three priority groups.

    When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base their decisions
    to a significant extent on factors other than a species' priority ranking.
    At the headquarters level, a formula that focuses on each region's
    workload determines how recovery funds are allocated to regional offices.
    Each regional office allocates its recovery funds to their field offices
    differently, but in no case is priority ranking the driving factor.
    Instead, regional officials focus primarily on opportunities for
    partnerships, though they told us that they also focus on species facing
    the gravest threats. Field office staff we spoke with emphasized the
    importance of pursuing funding partnerships in order to maximize their
    scarce recovery funds. The Service does not know the effect of these
    disparate allocation systems because it does not have a process to
    routinely measure the extent to which it is spending its recovery funds on
    higher priority species. While we found that for fiscal years 2000 through
    2003 the Service spent a majority of its recovery funds on high priority
    species, without periodically assessing its funding decisions, the Service
    cannot ensure that it spends its recovery funds on the species that are of
    the greatest priority and, in cases where it does not, determine whether
    its funding decisions are appropriate.

    Recovery Funds Spent on Species by Priority, Fiscal Years 2000-2003
    Recovery dollars in millions 60

    44%

    50 40 30 20 10

    0

    High Priority Low Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent due to rounding.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief
    Background
    The Service Spends a Significant Portion of Recovery Funds on the

    Highest Priority Species

    The Service Considers Factors Besides Species Priority When Allocating
    Recovery Funds but Does Not Assess the Results of Its Funding Decisions

    Conclusions
    Recommendations for Executive Action
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    1 3 5

    13

    19 30 31 31

      Appendixes

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 33

    Appendix II:	Comments from the Department of the Interior 38 GAO Comments
    40

    Appendix III:	GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 42 GAO Contact 42
    Staff Acknowledgments 42

    Tables Table 1:

    Table 2: Table 3:

    Table 4:

    Table 5: Table 6:

    Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species
    Activities and Fish and Wildlife Recovery Expenditures by
    Year for Fiscal Years 2000-2003 9
    Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Priority Ranking
    Schedule 10
    Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species
    Activities Compared to Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Recovery Expenditures During Fiscal Year 2003-for Top
    20 Species 27
    Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Expenditures
    Compared to Total Reported Expenditures on All
    Endangered Species Activities During Fiscal Year 2003-
    for Top 20 Species 29
    GAO Groupings of Priority Numbers 35
    Number of Species in Each Priority Group, by Year 36

                                        Contents

    Figures Figure 1:

    Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:

    Figure 5:

    Figure 6:

    Figure 7:

    Figure 8:

    Figure 9:

    Recovery Expenditures by Priority, Fiscal Years
    2000-2003 4
    The Fish and Wildlife Service's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget 8
    Location of Fish and Wildlife Service's Seven Regions 12
    Recovery Expenditures by Priority Ranking, Fiscal Years
    2000-2003 14
    Distribution of Species by Priority Ranking as of
    September 2003 15
    Weighted Average Per Species Expenditure, by Priority
    Ranking, Fiscal Years 2000-2003 16
    Distribution of Endangered and Threatened Species by
    Priority Ranking as of September 2003 17
    Weighted Average Per Species Expenditures, by
    Taxonomic Classification, Fiscal Years 2000-2003 18
    The California Red-Legged Frog Is Important to a
    California Community Dueto Its Prominence in a Famous
    Mark Twain Story 25

    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. However, 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.

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    April 6, 2005

    The Honorable Richard W. Pombo Chairman, Committee on Resources House of
    Representatives

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects more than 1,260 species facing
    extinction or likely to face extinction (referred to as endangered and
    threatened species, respectively). The purpose of the act is to conserve
    endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they
    depend. Critics of the act are concerned that this goal is not being met
    because only 9 species have been "recovered"-brought to the point where
    they no longer need the act's protection-since the act's inception in
    1973.1 However, proponents of the act counter that because of the act's
    protections only 9 species have gone extinct. Proponents also point out
    that funding available to recover species is only a small fraction of what
    federal scientists believe is needed, making greater recovery progress a
    practical impossibility.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responsible for
    implementing the act for freshwater and land species.2 To recover species,
    the Service develops recovery plans, which include site-specific recovery
    tasks such as identifying the size of a population or restoring habitat.
    Recovery plans can take years or decades to fully implement, depending on
    the needs of the species covered by the plan. In 1979, Congress amended
    the act, in part, to require the Service to establish guidelines for
    prioritizing the development and implementation of recovery plans. The
    Service established guidelines that, among other things, prioritize
    species based on factors such as the degree of threat the species faces
    and its potential to be recovered.3 Under these guidelines, therefore,
    species facing a high degree of threat and having a high potential for
    recovery are to be afforded the highest priority. Species in this category
    include the northern spotted owl,

    1As of September 30, 2004.

    2The Department of the Interior has delegated its responsibility for
    freshwater and land species to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
    established an endangered species program to implement the requirements of
    the act. Responsibility for implementing the act for anadromous fish and
    most marine species resides with the Department of Commerce, which has
    delegated its responsibilities to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
    This report does not address the National Marine Fisheries Service
    program.

    348 Fed. Reg. 43098 (Sept. 21, 1983).

    the grizzly bear, and the American crocodile as well as lesser-known
    highpriority species such as Fender's blue butterfly, Texas wild rice, and
    the Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (a sea bird). The recovery guidelines
    emphasize that they should be used only as a guide, not as an inflexible
    framework for determining funding allocations.

    During fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the Service allocated $245 million-
    between $56 million and $65 million per year-to develop and implement
    plans under its recovery program.4 Biologists inside the Service and
    elsewhere believe these funds are a small fraction of what is needed in
    the face of the daunting recovery challenge. As a result, the Service
    increasingly relies on partnerships with other federal agencies, the
    states, and private organizations to help implement recovery plans and has
    cultivated relationships with many of them by jointly funding projects.
    For example, the Service's Hawaii field office is jointly funding a
    project with other federal agencies, local governments, and The Nature
    Conservancy to revitalize watersheds to help recover the endangered
    Hawaiian duck, among other species. Although the Service is required to
    report annually on all federal and some state expenditures on listed
    species,5 it does not separately report on how it spent its recovery funds
    by species.6

    You asked us to assess how the Service allocates its recovery funds among
    endangered and threatened species. In this report, we (1) analyze how the
    Service's allocation of recovery funds compares with its recovery priority
    guidelines and (2) determine what factors influence the Service's recovery
    funding allocation decisions. Since most of the Service's recovery funding
    was spent on salaries that are not allocated on a per species basis, we
    asked each of the Service's regional offices to identify, to the extent
    possible, the spending on individual species for fiscal years 2000 through
    2003. Collectively, the regions were able to attribute to individual
    species $127 million (52 percent) of the $245 million the Service
    allocated to the recovery program. We also obtained the individual
    species' priority ranking based on the recovery priority guidelines for
    those years. We then

    4All dollars in this report are in current year dollars.

    5The act requires the Service to submit to Congress by January 15th an
    annual report covering the preceding fiscal year containing an accounting
    of a species by species basis for all reasonably identifiable expenditures
    made primarily for the conservation of endangered or threatened species
    pursuant to the act.

    6In this report, the term "spent" refers to budget outlays or
    expenditures.

    compared the recovery expenditures for individual species with those
    species' priority rankings for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. In
    addition, we interviewed Service recovery officials in headquarters, all
    seven regional offices, and several field offices throughout the country.
    (See App. I for a more detailed description of the scope and methodology
    of our review). We did not make a judgment about the adequacy or accuracy
    of the Service's recovery priority system. In this report we analyzed only
    Fish and Wildlife Service's recovery expenditures, not expenditures on
    other endangered and threatened species activities (which are reported, in
    combination with recovery expenditures, in Fish and Wildlife Service's
    annual expenditure report to Congress) or expenditures from other
    entities. We performed our work between February 2004 and January 2005 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief	The Fish and Wildlife Service has spent its recovery
    funds in a manner generally consistent with its recovery priority
    guidelines. For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the Service spent nearly
    half (44 percent) of the recovery funds attributable to individual species
    on species with both a high degree of threat and a high potential for
    recovery (see fig. 1). These species constitute one-third of all
    endangered and threatened species, and they received, on average, more
    funding than species that were lower priority. Of the remaining recovery
    funds, almost all (51 percent) was spent on species in the next two
    highest priority groups-species with a high threat assessment but a low
    potential for recovery, and species with a moderate threat assessment but
    a high potential for recovery. Very little (6 percent) was spent on
    species in the remaining three lowest priority groups and most of this is
    attributable to spending on two species: the Bald Eagle (which is nearing
    delisting) and the Canada Lynx (which was embroiled in controversy).

    Figure 1: Recovery Expenditures by Priority, Fiscal Years 2000-2003

    Recovery dollars in millions

    60

    44%

    50

    40

    30

    20

    10

    0

    Threat

    Recoverability

    High Priority Low

    Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent due to rounding.

    When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base their decisions
    to a significant extent on factors other than those contained in the
    recovery priority guidelines, including workload and partnerships with
    other organizations. Headquarters allocates most of its recovery budget
    among the Service's seven regional offices using a formula to estimate
    each region's workload based on the number of species that the region is
    responsible for and a relative estimate of the cost to recover each
    species. This formula does not necessarily reflect the threats facing a
    species or its recoverability. Service officials told us that they use
    this formula because it provides relatively stable funding to each
    region-an important consideration because most of a region's recovery
    budget supports staff salaries for recovery biologists. These biologists
    work on a variety of recovery activities including helping to develop
    recovery plans, coordinating recovery tasks and developing recovery
    partnerships. After headquarters allocates funds to the regional offices,
    the regional offices then allocate funds to the field offices, relying
    extensively on factors such as long-standing arrangements to work with
    partners to recover specific

    species and other opportunities to have partners bring funding and
    resources to the recovery program. Officials throughout the Service told
    us that, in allocating funding, it is crucial to have flexibility to stray
    from the recovery priority guidelines to maximize recovery resources
    contributed through partnerships. However, the Service does not have a
    process to routinely measure the extent to which it is spending its
    recovery funds on high-priority species. As a result, the Service cannot
    be certain that it will continue to spend its recovery funds on the
    highest priority species as it attempts to maximize its partners'
    contributions. In addition, because the Service does not separately report
    on how it spent its recovery funds by species, it cannot show Congress or
    the public the extent to which it is focusing its resources on the highest
    priority species, or explain, in cases where it is not, that its resource
    decisions are still appropriate. To make its allocation process more
    systematic and transparent, we recommend that the Service periodically
    assess the extent to which it is following its recovery priority
    guidelines, identify how factors other than those in the guidelines are
    affecting its funding allocation decisions, and report this information
    publicly.

    We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for
    review and comment. In general, the Department agreed with our findings
    and recommendations. The Department's letter and our response to it is
    presented in appendix II.

    Background	The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is to
    conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which
    they depend. The act defines "conservation" as the recovery of endangered
    and threatened species so that they no longer need the protective measures
    afforded by the Act. The act defines as endangered any species facing
    extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and
    defines as threatened any species likely to become endangered in the
    foreseeable future. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to
    publish a list of species it determines are endangered or threatened in
    the Federal Register and specify any critical habitat of the species with
    in its range-habitat essential to a species' conservation. Loss of habitat
    is often the principal cause of species decline. Additionally, the act
    establishes a process for federal agencies to consult with the Service
    about their activities that may affect listed species. Federal agencies
    must ensure that their activities, or any activities they fund, permit or
    license, do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
    result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat.

    There were 1,264 species in the United States listed as endangered or
    threatened as of September 30, 2004.7 The Service has responsibility for
    1252 of these species. Thirty-two species have been removed from the list:
    9 species as a result of recovery efforts, 9 because they have been
    declared extinct, and 14 species for other reasons, mostly because new
    information showed that listing was no longer warranted.8

    The Service develops and implements recovery plans, among other things, to
    reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its long-term
    survival. A recovery plan may include a variety of methods and procedures
    to recover listed species, such as protective measures to prevent
    extinction or further decline, habitat acquisition and restoration, and
    other on-theground activities for managing and monitoring endangered and
    threatened species. According to Service officials, it is their policy to
    issue a recovery plan within two and a half years of the species' date of
    listing. The Service exempts species from the plan requirement when it is
    determined a plan will not promote their conservation.9 For example, the
    ivory-billed woodpecker is exempt because the Service thinks it is
    extirpated from the wild throughout its range.

    Recovery plans aim to identify the problems threatening the species and
    the actions needed to resolve them. The act directs the Service, to the
    maximum extent practicable, to incorporate into each recovery plan (1) a
    description of site-specific recovery tasks necessary to achieve the
    plan's goal for the conservation and survival of the species; (2)
    objective measurable criteria that will result in a determination that the
    species can be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species
    (delisted); and (3) an implementation schedule that estimates the time and
    cost required to carry out the recovery tasks described in the recovery
    plan. Service employees, independent scientists, species experts, or a mix
    of

    7This does not include foreign species-species whose current and historic
    range occurs entirely under the jurisdiction of other countries.

    8Some species were delisted because new information showed the species to
    be more widespread or abundant than believed at the time the species was
    listed. Other species were delisted for taxonomic reasons, meaning that
    additional analysis found the species was not unique; for example, it was
    simply a population of another common species making it ineligible for
    listing. One species, the Hoover's woolly-star, was delisted as a result
    of recovery actions and because of the availability of new
    information-specifically, a new population was discovered. We counted this
    species as one of the 9 species delisted as a result of recovery efforts.

    9The Service does not require recovery plans for foreign species.

    these people can develop recovery plans. According to Service officials,
    as of September 2004, the Fish and Wildlife Service had 551 approved
    recovery plans covering more than 1025 species (more than 80 percent of
    all listed species).

    The act also requires the Service to report biennially to certain
    Congressional committees on efforts to develop and implement recovery
    plans, and on the status of listed species for which plans have been
    developed. The Service implements this requirement through its biennial
    Recovery Report to Congress.10 Additionally, the act requires the Service
    to submit an annual report to the Congress on federal expenditures for the
    conservation of endangered or threatened species, as well as expenditures
    by states receiving federal financial assistance for such conservation
    activities.11 As part of its efforts to compile data for this report, the
    Service collects data on recovery fund expenditures on a species-specific
    basis, although these data have not been reported separately in published
    expenditure reports.

    With regard to Service funds, the Endangered Species program is a small
    portion of the Service's overall budget ($132 million of $1.9 billion in
    fiscal year 2003). Of this amount, about one-half is devoted to the
    recovery program, $65 million (see fig. 2). This is similar to previous
    fiscal years.12 The funds spent on the recovery program, however, are only
    a portion of the total money spent to recover species. Some of the
    Service's other programs, including refuges, contribute funds and staff to
    species recovery. In addition, according to the Service, other federal and
    non-federal entities contribute substantial funds to species recovery.

    10The latest report is Recovery Report to Congress, Fiscal Years
    2001-2002; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    11See, for example, Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species
    Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is
    the most recent report available.

    12In fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002 the Service allocated, respectively,
    $56 million, $60 million and $64 million in recovery funds.

    Figure 2: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

    Source: Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of the Interior budget
    information.

    Note: Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has
    sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose
    them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for
    which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher
    priority listing activities. The Candidate Conservation Program provides a
    means for conserving these species.

    In addition to the Service's Endangered Species Program expenditures to
    recover species, other programs in the Service as well as other federal
    and state agencies spend substantial funds on endangered species
    activities, including land acquisition (see table 1).

    Table 1: Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species Activities
    and Fish and Wildlife Recovery Expenditures by Year for Fiscal Years
    2000-2003

                                In thousands of dollars

                            FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

    Total reported Federal and State
    Expenditures for All Endangered Species
    Activities (including land acquisition) 610,286 2,442,356 1,191,752
    1,201,166

    Service Recovery Expenditures 37,905 27,814 39,021 48,418

    Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Note: The source of data for the row "Total Reported Federal and State
    Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities (including land
    acquisition)" is the Service's fiscal year 2003 expenditure report
    (Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures, Fiscal
    Year 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). In this report, the Service
    identifies a number of differences in reporting methods that make it
    difficult to compare expenditure data from different years. For example,
    prior to the fiscal year 2001 report, the Service did not include cost
    data that could not be attributed to a specific individual species. These
    data are now included, and partially explains the notable difference
    between the fiscal year 2000 and the fiscal year 2001 totals. The data
    contained in this row also include Service recovery fund expenditures. The
    source of data for the row "Service Recovery Expenditures" is unpublished
    data that the Service collected for its expenditure reports. The Fiscal
    year 2000 data does not include cost data that could not be attributed to
    a specific individual species while the fiscal year 2001-2003 data does.

    Congress amended the Endangered Species Act in 1979 to require the
    Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to establish, and publish in the
    Federal Register, agency guidelines that include a priority system for
    developing and implementing recovery plans. The Service adopted recovery
    priority guidelines in 1980 and amended them in 1983.13 The guidelines
    consist of two parts:

    1348 Fed. Reg. 43098 (Sept. 21, 1983).

    o 	Species are assigned a priority ranking between 1 and 18 on the basis
    of (in descending order of importance) (1) the degree of threat
    confronting the species, (2) recovery potential (the likelihood for
    successfully recovering the species),14 and (3) taxonomy (genetic
    distinctiveness).15 (See table 2.) Additionally, a "c" is added to the
    ranking if there is conflict with economic activities, like development;
    this gives the species priority over other species with the same ranking
    but without a "c". Thus, the highest possible priority ranking is a "1c".
    The Service sometimes changes a species' priority ranking when warranted
    by a change in the species' situation.

    Table 2: Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Priority Ranking Schedule

                      Priority                   Recoverability
                          rank Degree of threat        potential     Taxonomy
                                            High            High  Monotypic genus
                                            High            High     Species
                                            High            High    Subspecies
                                            High             Low  Monotypic genus
                                            High             Low     Species
                                            High             Low    Subspecies
                                        Moderate            High  Monotypic genus
                                        Moderate            High     Species
                                        Moderate            High    Subspecies
                                        Moderate             Low  Monotypic genus
                                        Moderate             Low     Species
                                        Moderate             Low    Subspecies
                                             Low            High  Monotypic genus
                                             Low            High     Species
                                             Low            High    Subspecies

    14According to the Service's priority guidelines, the criteria used to
    determine recovery potential are how well the ecological processes and
    threats that affect the species are understood, how easily the threats can
    be alleviated, and whether intensive management is needed to recover the
    species.

    15According to the Service's priority guidelines, the criterion related to
    taxonomy (genetic distinctiveness) is intended to devote resources on a
    priority basis to those species representing highly distinctive or
    isolated gene pools, as reflected by the taxonomic level at which they are
    recognized.

    (Continued From Previous Page)

                      Priority                   Recoverability
                          rank Degree of threat        potential     Taxonomy
                                             Low             Low  Monotypic genus
                                             Low             Low     Species
                                             Low             Low    Subspecies

    Source: Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Species
    Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines.

    Note: A species that is a monotypic genus is the only remaining species
    representing the entire genus.

    o 	The second part of the priority system ranks the recovery tasks within
    each recovery plan. Each task is assigned a priority number from 1 to 3,
    with 1 being the highest. A priority 1 task is "an action that must be
    taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining
    irreversibly." A priority 2 task is "an action that must be taken to
    prevent a significant decline in species population/habitat quality or
    some other significant negative impact short of extinction", and a
    priority 3 task is "all other actions necessary to provide for full
    recovery of the species."16

    The recovery guidelines emphasize that they should be used only as a
    guide, not as an inflexible framework for determining funding allocations.

    Within the Service, responsibility for implementing the act is divided
    among its three administrative levels: headquarters, regions and field
    offices. Headquarters officials develop policy and guidance and allocate
    funding to the regions. Regional directors in the seven regions (shown in
    figure 3) make most decisions on how to spend endangered species program
    funds and are responsible for managing their field offices' program
    activities. Field offices are responsible for implementing program
    activities and setting priorities for projects they will undertake.

    16We did not assess how the Service's allocation of recovery funds
    compares with task priority.

    The Service Spends a Significant Portion of Recovery Funds on the Highest
    Priority Species

    The Fish and Wildlife Service spent its recovery funds in a manner
    generally consistent with species priority in fiscal years 2000 through
    2003. From fiscal years 2000 to 2003, the Service spent 44 percent of its
    recovery funds attributable to individual species on those species with
    the highest priority, the 415 species ranked 1 through 3 on the 18-point
    priority ranking scale (see fig. 4).17 However, 25 of these species
    received no recovery funding at all during fiscal years 2000 through
    2003.18 Additionally, two species with low priority rankings, the bald
    eagle (with a priority ranking of 14c) and the Canada lynx (with a ranking
    of 15), received substantial recovery funding during fiscal years
    2000-2003.

    17There were 415 species ranked 1 through 3 at the end of fiscal year
    2003. In fiscal years 2000 through 2002 there were 395, 408 and 416
    species ranked 1 through 3, respectively. Our analysis of species priority
    rankings considered species, subspecies and populations of species, as
    appropriate. For example, different wolf populations have different
    priority rankings.

    18Twenty-five of the 415 species ranked 1 through 3 in fiscal year 2003
    received no funding attributable to individual species during fiscal years
    2000-2003.

    Figure 4: Recovery Expenditures by Priority Ranking, Fiscal Years
    2000-2003

    Recovery dollars in millions 60

    44%

    50

    40

    30

    20

    10

    0

                                           Threat Recoverability Priority ranking

    Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    Note: Percentages add to more than 100 percent due to rounding. Recovery
    expenditures on species with priority numbers 16-18 are less than one
    percent.

    One reason the Service spent 44 percent of its recovery funds attributable
    to individual species on the highest priority species is that this group
    accounts for a significant portion of all listed species-one-third (see
    fig. 5). Similarly, the Service spent almost all (94 percent) of its
    attributable recovery funds on species ranked 1 through 9 on the 18-point
    scale, which account for 92 percent of all listed species.

    Figure 5: Distribution of Species by Priority Ranking as of September 2003

    Priority ranking:

    Ranking 1-3 (415 species)

    Ranking 4-6 (448 species)

    Ranking 7-9 (284 species)

    3.8%

    Ranking 10-12 (47 species)

    3.8%

    Ranking 13-15 (48 species)

    0.5%

    Ranking 16-18 (6 species)

    Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    Note: The distribution of species by priority ranking in fiscal years
    2000, 2001 and 2002 is not substantially different from the distribution
    in fiscal year 2003, see app I.

    As shown in figure 6, analysis of average spending on a per species basis
    also reveals that more expenditures are made on higher priority species.
    Additionally, the analysis shows the emphasis the Service placed on
    species with a high degree of recoverability. The relatively large amount
    of funding spent on species with low priority rankings (13 through 15) is
    greatly influenced by spending on the bald eagle (with a priority ranking
    of 14c) and the Canada lynx (with a ranking of 15). The bald eagle is
    nearing delisting and the funding was spent on delisting activities. The
    Canada lynx was embroiled in controversy that required recovery staff to
    respond to litigation. When spending on these two species is removed, the
    average amount spent on species in this priority group is significantly
    lower.

    Figure 6: Weighted Average Per Species Expenditure, by Priority Ranking,
    Fiscal

    Years 2000-2003

    Recovery dollars in thousands 35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0 Threat Recoverability

    Priority ranking

    Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    In addition to species priority ranking, another obvious measure of
    priority is whether a species is endangered or threatened. Over
    three-quarters (78 percent) of species protected under the act are listed
    as endangered, and most of these have high priority rankings (see fig. 7).
    We analyzed spending by species status (endangered or threatened) and
    found that the Service spent a majority (64 percent) of its recovery funds
    on endangered species during fiscal years 2000 through 2003.19

    Figure 7: Distribution of Endangered and Threatened Species by Priority
    Ranking as of September 2003

    Number of species

    500

    400

    300

    200

    100

    0 Threat

    Recoverability

    Priority ranking

    Endangered Threatened Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service
    data.

    19This analysis compares spending in fiscal years 2000 through 2003 with
    species status as of September 30, 2003. Between fiscal years 2000 and
    2003, the Service changed the status of only two domestic species, both
    from endangered to threatened. The species were the largeflowered skullcap
    and two populations of the gray wolf.

    Finally, we analyzed spending by the three taxonomic classifications
    included in the Service's recovery priority guidelines-monotypic genus,
    species, and subspecies. As shown in figure 8, an analysis of average
    spending on a per species basis reveals that more expenditures are made on
    listed entities classified as monotypic genus. A species that is a
    monotypic genus is the only remaining species representing the entire
    genus.

    Figure 8: Weighted Average Per Species Expenditures, by Taxonomic
    Classification, Fiscal Years 2000-2003

    Recovery dollars in thousands

    80

    70

    60

    50

    40

    30

    20

    10

    0
          Monotypic Species   Sub-species
              genus
    Priority 1,  2, 5, 8,
    4, 7, 10,      11,    3, 6, 9, 12,
    ranking 13,   14, 17     15, 18
    16

    Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    The Service Considers Factors Besides Species Priority When Allocating
    Recovery Funds but Does Not Assess the Results of Its Funding Decisions

    When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base these decisions
    to a significant extent on factors other than a species' priority ranking.
    At the headquarters level, a formula that accounts for each region's
    workload, but not species' priority rankings, determines how recovery
    funds are allocated. Each regional office allocates recovery funds to
    their field offices differently, but in no case is priority ranking the
    driving factor. Instead, regional officials focus primarily on partnership
    opportunities, though regional officials told us they do try to provide
    funds to species that have a high degree of threat. Although field office
    staff we spoke with use priority rankings, they also emphasized the
    importance of having flexibility to allocate funds to develop
    partnerships. The Service does not know the extent to which these
    disparate allocation systems yield results consistent with the Service's
    priority guidelines because the Service does not have a process to
    routinely measure the extent to which it is spending its recovery funds on
    higher priority species.

    Headquarters Allocates Funds to the Regions Based on Workload

    In making allocation decisions, headquarters does not consider a species'
    priority ranking or any of the factors that go into determining priority
    rankings. Instead, it allocates recovery funds to its seven regions based
    primarily on a formula that estimates each region's workload.20 The
    formula estimates the recovery workload for each region by assigning each
    species a score of between 2 and 7 points, based on the type of species
    and its habitat needs. Higher points are assigned to those species whose
    recovery requires higher levels of funding or effort-factors that are not
    clearly related to a species' priority ranking. For example, animals are
    assigned 2 points while plants are assigned 1. Species that occupy
    habitats larger than 1 million acres or are migratory or aquatic are
    assigned 5 points whereas species that occupy less than 1,000 acres are
    assigned 1 point. Recovery funds are then allocated to the regions based
    on the number of species occurring in each region and the points assigned
    to those species. Additionally, headquarters uses a workload-based formula
    to allocate funds to regions to develop recovery plans. Funds are
    allocated to each region based on the number of species that it is
    responsible for that have not been

    20Some funds are not allocated according to this formula. For example,
    headquarters sets aside approximately $1,000,000 for delisting and
    downlisting activities and approximately $1,000,000 for "capability
    funding" annually. Capability funding is used to help staff in each region
    maintain a basic competency in recovery-related tasks. Additionally, the
    Service allocates some funds based on direction provided it by Congress,
    for example, through appropriation committee conference reports.

    exempted from the plan requirement and that have been listed for 4 years
    or less. If after 4 years there is still no plan, then the region no
    longer receives recovery-planning money for that species, though the
    region is still responsible for completing that species' recovery plan.

    Service officials in headquarters told us that they use an allocation
    system based on workload rather than the priority guidelines for a number
    of reasons. First, this system provides relatively stable funding to each
    region from year to year. In contrast, priority rankings can change over
    time, which would add an element of unpredictability to the annual
    allocations. Stability is important, according to Service officials,
    because most of a region's recovery budget supports staff salaries for
    recovery biologists. These biologists work on a wide variety of recovery
    activities including helping to develop recovery plans, conducting as well
    as coordinating onthe-ground actions to implement recovery plans,
    conducting periodic species status reviews, developing recovery
    partnerships, and litigation support. Second, although priority rankings
    indicate which species are higher priority, they do not reflect how much
    money a species needs. Service officials pointed out that higher priority
    species are not necessarily more costly to recover than lower priority
    species. Lastly, Service officials told us that a system based on workload
    is more objective, and they expressed concern that the subjective nature
    of priority rankings could create conflict between the regions if
    allocations were based on these rankings. While Service officials at
    headquarters told us that recovery funds should be spent according to
    priority rankings, they believe those decisions should be made at the
    regional level.

    Almost all of the regional officials we talked to agreed that the
    allocation system used by headquarters works well and is fair and
    equitable, although some of them suggested changes. For example, some
    regional and field office officials noted that a species' priority
    ranking, particularly its degree of threat, could be included, along with
    the existing workload factors, in headquarters' formula for allocating
    recovery funds.

    Regional Offices Focus on While each region allocates recovery funds to
    its field offices differently, Opportunities for we found that the most
    important consideration among the regions is to Partnerships When Making
    maintain and develop recovery partnerships, either by funding long

    standing arrangements to work with partners to recover specific species or

    Funding Decisions	by taking advantage of opportunities to develop new
    partnerships. For example, officials at the Southwest region told us that
    for the last 10 years the region has allocated its discretionary recovery
    funds primarily to four

    species for which it has long-standing partnerships with other
    entities-the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, the whooping crane, the Mexican
    wolf and the Attwater's prairie chicken.21 The financial support from
    long-term partners, in concert with expenditures from the Service,
    provides a stable funding source for recovery projects from year to year,
    helping to create viable recovery programs for these four species. For
    example, the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle population has increased from a low
    of 270 females to several thousand females in the course of this long-term
    partnership.

    Source: Bill Reaves, Texas Parks and Wildlife.	Service officials told us
    that it is important to maintain their yearly contributions to
    long-standing partnerships, regardless of the species' priority ranking,
    because the funds these partners contribute are critical to species'
    recovery and the partners could lose interest without the Service's
    contributions. Officials at all levels of the Service reported to us that
    they have insufficient recovery funds. Although it is difficult to develop
    an accurate estimate of the full cost to recover all listed species (and
    it is unlikely that some species will ever be recovered), we analyzed the
    cost data contained in 120 recovery plans covering an estimated 189 listed
    species.22 Based on the Service's estimated recovery costs in these plans,
    we found that it would cost approximately $98 million dollars to fully
    fund these plans-plans that cover just 15 percent of listed species-for a
    single year.23 This amount is well above the $65 million the Service
    allocated in

    Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.	fiscal year 2003 to develop and
    implement recovery plans and does not account for the recovery needs of
    the remaining 1000 listed species. Even implementing only the highest
    priority recovery plan tasks for those 120 plans-recovery plan tasks
    "necessary to avoid extinction," would cost approximately $57 million,
    nearly 90 percent of the Services' total recovery budget in fiscal year
    2003. Consequently, the Service is dependent on monetary contributions
    from partners to facilitate species recovery.

    Regional officials not only fund long-standing partnerships, but look for

    opportunities to develop new ones as well. Service officials expressed

    concern that if they were confined to allocating funds strictly by the

    Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    21Discretionary recovery funds are those funds left after the region
    covers salaries, benefits, directives from headquarters, including items
    funded at the direction of Congress.

    22These 120 plans were the ones for which the Service provided us with
    electronic versions of the plans' implementation schedules, which enabled
    us to complete this analysis.

    23We calculated this number by determining the average cost to implement
    each plan based on the cost data in the plan and then summed the averages.
    This figure does not include all estimated recovery costs, particularly
    land acquisition costs, which can be expensive.

    priority system, they could alienate potential recovery partners. For
    example, some regional officials pointed out that land acquisition can
    take many years, so if willing sellers present themselves, the region will
    take advantage of that opportunity by allocating recovery funds to acquire
    those lands even if they do not benefit a species of the highest priority.
    In another example, officials in a field office in the Pacific region told
    us they were able to leverage its $20,000 investment into a $60,000
    project by developing an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to jointly
    fund a study to identify how the California red-legged frog was using
    suitable habitat. Fish and Wildlife Service officials in the Pacific
    region also leverage funds with non-

                        Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    federal partners. In 2002, a $10,000 investment in desert tortoise
    monitoring from the Fish and Wildlife Service was matched by $16,540 from
    Clark County, Nevada and $5,000 from the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
    Almost all of the Service officials we talked with stressed the importance
    of having the flexibility to develop partnerships for recovery,
    particularly to leverage the Service's scarce recovery funds.24 Finding
    partners and other sources of funds to implement recovery actions is also
    strongly emphasized in the Service's course on recovery implementation,
    which is offered at the National Conservation Training Center in West
    Virginia and other locations around the country.

    While a species' priority ranking is not a primary factor for determining
    how regions distribute recovery funds, regions do consider priority
    rankings when making recovery allocations. The two regions responsible for
    the most species, the Southeast region and the Pacific region,
    specifically incorporate the priority system into their funding
    allocations. In the Southeast, field offices and other divisions of the
    Service, like Refuges,25 submit proposals to obtain recovery funding to
    implement recovery plan tasks. Once the regional office receives all the
    proposals, officials determine which ones to fund that year. In doing so,
    they consider a number of factors, including the species' priority
    ranking. Similarly, the Pacific regional office reserves a portion of the
    recovery funds it receives and uses them to fund proposals submitted by
    its field offices to implement recovery plan tasks. One of the factors the
    region considers when determining which proposals to fund is the species'
    priority ranking. Most of the other regions we talked to told us that they
    consider some aspects of

    24We were not able to quantify all funds provided by federal and
    non-federal partners in implementing recovery actions because they do not
    maintain expenditure data in this way.

    25Refuges are a division of the Service that is responsible for managing
    National Wildlife Refuges.

    the priority system when making funding decisions, particularly the
    species' degree of threat, although they do not directly consider a
    species' priority ranking.

    Sometimes regions will also target funds to lower--priority species if
    they are nearing recovery.26 For example, the bald eagle ranked 20th among
    those species with the highest recovery expenditures from fiscal year 2000
    to fiscal year 2003, despite having a priority ranking of 14c. A Service
    official attributed most of these expenditures to delisting activities for
    the bald eagle. Many Service officials pointed out that the priority
    system does not contain a mechanism for funding species that are nearing
    recovery. Because a species' priority will decrease as its threats are
    alleviated and it moves closer to recovery, the priority system would
    dictate that other more imperiled species be funded before those that are
    close to delisting. Consequently, species close to recovery might never be
    delisted because funds would not be allocated to complete the tasks
    required for delisting. Service officials told us they need flexibility to
    provide funds that will help get species off the list. Headquarters
    officials have also recognized this issue and, beginning in fiscal year
    2004, created a special fund that directs funding to species close to
    delisting (as well as those close to extinction) in its "Showing Success,
    Preventing Extinction" initiative.

    Field Offices We Talked to Use the Priority System When Making Funding
    Allocations

    In the field offices we contacted, we found that species' priority
    rankings play an important role in recovery allocations. Service personnel
    in four of the ten field offices we spoke with told us that a species'
    priority ranking is one of the key factors they use to allocate recovery
    funds.27 For example, in the Pacific Islands field office, which is
    responsible for the recovery of over 300 species, officials use the
    recovery priority system as a "first step," then overlay other factors,
    like opportunities to leverage funding. Staff in five of the remaining six
    offices we spoke with told us that while they do not specifically use the
    priority system when making recovery allocations, they do consider a
    species' degree of threat. Staff in the last field office said they did
    not use the priority system because most of their funds were spent
    according to direction provided by the region.

    26These funds may come from the $1,000,000 headquarters sets aside for
    delisting and downlisting or they may come from the region's recovery
    budget.

    27According to Service officials, there are approximately 70 field offices
    that have lead responsibility for recovering species.

    Despite their use of the priority system, most of the field office staff
    we contacted also stressed the importance of having the flexibility to
    allocate funds to take advantage of unique opportunities when they arise.
    For example, officials in a field office in California told us they took
    advantage of an opportunity to leverage recovery funding for the
    California red-legged frog. A population of this frog was recently
    discovered in Calaveras County, site of Mark Twain's famous story The
    Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County, which featured the California
    red-legged frog. The landowner where the population was discovered was
    eager to work with the Service to build a stock pond to provide habitat
    for the red-legged frog and eradicate bullfrogs (red-legged frog
    competitors). The discovery of the frog population was momentous because
    the species is important to local lore, and a population of the frog had
    not been found in Calaveras County since the late 1800s (see fig. 9). Even
    though the field office has 65 species with higher priority rankings than
    the red-legged frog,28 officials decided to address this recovery
    opportunity because of the frog's importance to the local community. Other
    unique events also require funding flexibility. In a Utah field office
    last year, for example, a road expansion threatened the existence of the
    clay phacelia, an endangered plant. The field office staff responded to
    this threat by working with partners to collect seeds for future
    propagation.

    28This California field office has the lead responsibility for 104
    species.

    Figure 9: The California Red-Legged Frog Is Important to a California
    Community Due to Its Prominence in a Famous Mark Twain Story

    Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    The Service Does Not Assess and Report on Its Recovery Fund Expenditures

    The Service does not know the extent to which recovery fund expenditures
    are consistent with its priority guidelines. All of the Service's
    organizational levels participate in funding decisions, often relying on
    factors other than species priority. Although our analysis shows that the
    Service generally spent its recovery resources on higher priority species
    during fiscal years 2000 through 2003, we found that the Service has no
    process to routinely measure the extent to which it is spending its
    recovery funds on higher priority species. Without this information, the
    Service cannot ensure that it is spending its recovery funds on such
    species, and in cases where it is not,

    determine whether the funding decisions are appropriate. This is
    especially problematic as circumstances change-for example, when species
    are added to the list or priority rankings change for already-listed
    species.

    Although the Service is required to report all federal and some state
    expenditures on listed species,29 it does not separately report how it
    spent its recovery funds by species. This lack of separate reporting can
    make it difficult for Congress and others to determine whether the Service
    is focusing its recovery resources on the highest-priority species. For
    example, the species that received the greatest total federal and state
    expenditures in fiscal year 2003 are substantially different from those we
    identified as having received the greatest portion of the Service's
    recovery fund expenditures. Of the 47 species that the Service reported as
    having received the greatest total expenditures in fiscal year 2003,30 the
    Service has joint or lead responsibility for 20 of them. The list of 20
    species is radically different from the list that we identified as having
    received the greatest portion of the Service's recovery fund expenditures
    (see table 3). In the case of the Southwestern willow flycatcher, the
    Service reported that more funds were expended on the flycatcher in fiscal
    year 2003 than for all but three other species for which the Service has
    lead responsibility. However, the information the Service provided to us
    shows that it spent relatively few recovery funds on the Southwestern
    willow flycatcher in fiscal year 2003-it ranked 84th in the Service's
    recovery expenditures.

    29The act requires the Service to submit to Congress by January 15th an
    annual report covering the preceding fiscal year containing an accounting
    on a species by species basis of all reasonably identifiable federal
    expenditures made primarily for the conservation on endangered or
    threatened species pursuant to the act. The act also requires the Service
    to report similar expenditure information for states receiving grants
    under section 6 of the act.

    30See Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures,
    Fiscal Year 2003. This is the most recent report available.

    Table 3: Total Reported Expenditures for All Endangered Species Activities
    Compared to Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Expenditures During
    Fiscal Year 2003-for Top 20 Species

                        Total reported  Rank by total
                        federal         reported
                              and state   federal and
                                                state
                        expenditures on  expenditures                     Rank by
                                    all        on all                     service
               Priority      endangered    endangered    Service    recovery fund
                                species       species recovery fund
    Species               activities    activities
        name    ranking                                expenditures  expenditures

    Bull trout 9c $29,295,633 1 $2,063,748

    Rio Grande silvery 2c 11,300,700 2 220,000 minnow

    Red-cockaded 8c 11,069,069 3 505,676 woodpecker

    Southwestern willow 3c 9,909,284 4 54,160 flycatcher

    West Indian manatee 5c 9,798,514 5 996,457

    Bald eagle 14c 7,831,531 6 239,866

    Colorado pikeminnow 8c 7,262,592 7 225,009 (=squawfish)

    Razorback sucker 1c 7,127,470 8 242,733

    Desert tortoise 8c 6,522,281 9 223,064

    Florida panther 6c 6,301,276 10 135,869

    Atlantic salmon 6c 5,832,648 11 9,350

    Louisiana black bear 9 5,613,874 12 193,107

    Grizzly bear 3c 5,469,681 13 571,461

    Mexican spotted owl 9c 5,443,009 14 40,000

    Indiana bat 8 5,218,103 15 256,750

    White sturgeon 3c 5,197,021 16 21,900

    Humpback chub 2c 5,072,205 17 234,270

    Northern spotted owl  3c             5,053,263 18              845,418   7
          Whooping crane     2c             5,029,588 19              589,912  14
    Loggerhead sea turtle 7c             $4,767,416 20             $270,623 26
                                  Source: GAO analysis of Fish and
                                       Wildlife Service data.

    Note: The source of data for the column "Total Reported Federal and State
    Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities" is the Service's fiscal
    year 2003 expenditure report (Federal and State Endangered and Threatened
    Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
    We excluded species for which the National Marine Fisheries Service has
    sole responsibility. We combined expenditures for experimental and
    non-experimental populations when a listed entity had both. The data
    include Service recovery fund expenditures. The source of data for the
    column "Service Recovery Fund Expenditures" is data reported to us by each
    of the Service's regional offices. We did not determine the extent to
    which recovery fund expenditures reported to us correspond with those
    included in the Service's published expenditure report.

    Total reported expenditures and Service recovery fund expenditures differ
    substantially because the Service's recovery priority guidelines do not
    apply to most of the reported funds-those funds provided by other federal
    agencies and some funds reported by state agencies.31 The Service has
    little control over how other organizations spend their funds. The
    reported expenditures also include Service expenditures in addition to
    recovery funds, such as expenditures on listing and consultation, which
    are also not subject to the Service's recovery guidelines. In fact, in
    many instances, the Service does not have discretion over which species
    should receive these funds. For example, the Service spends consultation
    funds largely based on projects submitted to it by other federal agencies.

    Not unexpectedly, the list of 20 species receiving the greatest portion of
    the Service's recovery fund expenditures in fiscal year 2003 is also
    different from the list of species receiving the greatest portion of total
    federal and state expenditures in fiscal year 2003 (see table 4). For
    example, the California condor and the Western population of the gray wolf
    ranked first and third, respectively in recovery fund expenditures but are
    ranked 25th and 29th, respectively in overall federal and state
    expenditures.

    31One exception is grants made to states. The act authorizes the Service
    to provide financial assistance to states to assist in the development of
    programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and for
    other reasons. The Service considers recovery priority rankings when
    awarding these grants.

    Table 4: Fish and Wildlife Service's Recovery Expenditures Compared to
    Total Reported Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities During
    Fiscal Year 2003-for Top 20 Species

                                                     Total reported Rank by total
                                                     federal             reported
                                                          and state   federal and
                                                                            state
                                             Rank by   expenditures  expenditures
                                             service         on all        on all
                    Priority Service   recovery fund     endangered    endangered
                    recovery fund                           species       species
    Species name ranking             expenditures     activities    activities
                    expenditures
        California       4c $2,810,000             1     $3,526,183
          condor
        Bull trout        9c 2,063,748             2     29,295,633
        Gray Wolf,
         Western
         Distinct
        Population
         Segment          3c 1,789,940             3      3,261,662
    West Indian          5c 996,457             4      9,798,514
         Manatee
         Red wolf           5c 951,345             5        993,080
    Puerto Rican          2 900,000             6      1,419,800
          parrot
         Northern                                  7
    spotted owl          3c 845,418                    5,053,263

    Gray Wolf, 	Southwestern Distinct	Population Segment	(Mexican wolf) 3c
    800,000 8 934,170

             Steller's eider          9        799,600       9       1,062,836
           Giant garter snake         2c       724,038       10      1,561,474
            Marbled murrelet          3        677,739       11      4,754,652
               Bog turtle             6c       655,880       12      1,542,655
            Virgin River chub         2c       631,751       13       462,136
             Whooping crane           2c       589,912       14      5,029,588
              Grizzly bear            3c       571,461       15      5,469,681
          Karner blue butterfly       5        533,080       16      1,179,941
            Spectacled eider          5        520,900       17       574,980

           Red-cockaded
            woodpecker      8c              505,676 18              11,069,069  3
    Black-footed ferret  2               451,859 19              2,360,970  40
    Western snowy plover 3c             $451,786 20              $2,824,184 35
                                 Soure: GAO analysis of Fish and
                                      Wildlife Service data.

    Note: The source of data for the column "Total Reported Federal and State
    Expenditures on All Endangered Species Activities" is the Service's fiscal
    year 2003 expenditure report (Federal and State Endangered and Threatened
    Species Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
    We excluded species for which the National Marine Fisheries Service has
    sole responsibility. We combined expenditures for experimental and
    non-experimental populations when a listed entity had both. The data
    include Service recovery fund expenditures. The source of data for the
    column "Service Recovery Fund Expenditures" is data reported to us by each
    of the Service's regional offices. We did not determine the extent to
    which recovery fund expenditures reported to us correspond with those
    included in the Service's published expenditure report.

    Without a process to measure the extent to which it is spending its
    recovery funds on the highest-priority species, the Service lacks valuable
    information that would aid it in making management decisions. For example,
    while maintaining partnerships to fund certain species may be reasonable,
    many of these partnerships have been in place for many years, and changes
    to the species' status or threat level, as well as changes to the threat
    level of other species and the addition of newly listed species, could
    have occurred in that time. As such, perhaps the reasons for creating some
    of these partnerships may have been superseded by other needs and it may
    no longer be appropriate for particular species to garner so much funding
    from the region. Officials in the Southwest region, for instance, told us
    that most of the region's discretionary recovery funds are spent on four
    species (Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, Whooping crane, Mexican wolf, and
    Attwater's prairie chicken). These officials stated that they did not know
    these species' recovery priority rankings until after we scheduled a
    meeting with them, although they did believe the species to be highly
    ranked. While these four species all have high priority rankings-2c, 2c, 3
    and 3c, respectively- the region has lead responsibility for about 80
    other species with a priority ranking between 1 and 3. Although many of
    these species also received funding during fiscal years 2000-2003, more
    than one-quarter (20 species) had no Service recovery fund expenditures
    attributable to them.

    Conclusions	The Service faces a very difficult task-recovering more than
    1,200 endangered and threatened species to the point that they no longer
    need the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Many of these species
    face grave threats and have been imperiled for years. There are few easy
    solutions. Like many other federal agencies, the Service has limited funds
    with which to address these challenges. Fortunately, many other
    organizations contribute resources to help species. The Service maintains
    that its ability to be flexible in allocating its scarce recovery
    resources is the key to maximizing those contributions from other
    organizations. We agree that exercising flexibility in allocating recovery
    funds under its priority guidelines is important, but this needs to occur
    within the bounds of a systematic and transparent process. The Service,
    however, does not have such a process. While the Service acknowledges that
    it strays from its priority guidelines, it does not routinely analyze its
    allocation decisions to determine whether it is focusing on the highest
    priority species and, if not, why. Such an analysis is important to ensure
    that the Service continues to spend its recovery funds on the highest
    priority species over the long term. Without this information, the Service
    cannot show Congress or the public the extent that it is focusing its
    resources on the highest priority species, or

    explain, in cases where it is not, that its resource decisions are still
    appropriate.

    To this end, we believe the Service's priority guidelines provide it with
    the means to create a systematic and transparent allocation process while
    still allowing it needed flexibility. Because the Service already collects
    data, on a species by species basis, on how it spends its recovery funds,
    it would be a simple task to measure the extent to which it is spending
    its recovery funds on high-priority species. It could then make this
    information publicly available, thus providing the Congress and the public
    a yardstick with which to judge the efficacy of the Service's resource
    allocation decisions.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    To help ensure that the Service allocates recovery resources consistent
    with the priority guidelines over the long term and in a transparent
    fashion, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the
    Service to take the following two actions: (1) periodically assess the
    extent to which it is following its recovery priority guidelines and
    identify how factors other than those in the guidelines are affecting its
    funding allocation decisions, and (2) report this information publicly,
    for example, in its biennial recovery report to Congress.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Department
    of the Interior. In general, the Department agreed with our findings and
    recommendations but believes that we underestimated the extent to which
    the Service's funding decisions are consistent with its recovery priority
    guidelines. Because we found that the Service spent its recovery funds in
    a manner generally consistent with species priority, we do not believe
    this is a significant issue. See appendix II for the Department's letter
    and our response to it. Additionally, the Department provided technical
    comments that we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
    the report date. At the time, we will send copies of this report to the
    Secretary of the Interior and other interested parties. We also will make
    copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
    available at no charge on the GAO web site at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.
    Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

    Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    Appendix I

    Scope and Methodology

    In response to a request from the Chairman, House Committee on Resources,
    we (1) analyzed how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's allocation of
    recovery funds compares with its recovery priority guidelines and (2)
    determined what factors influence the Service's recovery funding
    allocation decisions. As agreed with the Chairman's staff, we evaluated
    only those funds specifically spent by the Service to implement its
    recovery program.

    To address our first objective, we requested recovery expenditure data, on
    a per species basis, from each of the Service's seven regions for fiscal
    years 2000-2003.1 Because the Service spends most of its recovery funds on
    salaries that are not allocated on a per species basis, we asked officials
    in each region to attribute salaries to specific species to the best of
    their abilities. To assess the reliability of these data, we compared the
    total estimated expenditures we received from each region for each year to
    budget documentation provided by headquarters officials, the Department of
    the Interior's Budget for fiscal years 2000-2003, and House and Senate
    committee reports for Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal
    years 2000-2003. We also asked the regional officials who provided these
    data a series of data reliability questions covering issues such as data
    entry, access, quality control procedures, and the accuracy and
    completeness of the data, as well as any limitations of the data. All
    responded that the data were generally accurate, and all but one performed
    some form of data review to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, officials
    from all but one region noted, as a limitation to the data, that it is
    sometimes difficult to link expenditures on activities to specific
    species. We determined that the expenditure data received from each of the
    Service's seven regions were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
    this report.

    We also obtained from the Service data on each species' priority number
    for fiscal years 2000 through 2003, as well as other information about
    each species, such as whether it is threatened or endangered and whether
    it has a recovery plan. We did not make a judgment about the adequacy or
    accuracy of the Service's recovery priority system. The Service also
    provided us with information on the estimated costs to implement
    approximately 120 recovery plans. We assessed the reliability of these
    data by (1) electronically testing required data elements, (2) reviewing
    existing

    1Similar data collected by the Service for its fiscal year 2001, 2002, and
    2003 expenditure reports became available in January 2005-too late to be
    used for most of the analyses in this report.

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3)
    interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. In addition,
    we compared the data set sent to us by the Service to the Service's
    publicly available (online) Threatened and Endangered Species System
    (TESS), which contains data on listed species similar to that we received
    from the Service. When we identified any difference between these two data
    sets, we independently corroborated, to the extent possible, which data
    set was correct by obtaining documentary evidence, either from the Federal
    Register or the appropriate recovery plan. When appropriate according to
    this documentary evidence, we made changes to the data sent to us by the
    Service. For example, the spineless hedgehog cactus was listed in the data
    set sent to us by the Service but was not found when we compared it to
    online TESS. We checked the Federal Register and found that this species
    was removed from the endangered species list in 1993, so we removed it
    from the data set sent to us by the Service because our time frame of
    interest is 2000 through 2003. In another instance, the data set sent to
    us by the Service contained the Berkeley kangaroo rat, but this species
    was not in TESS. We checked the recovery plan and found that this is a
    "species of concern," not an endangered or threatened species. The status
    field in the data sent to us by the Service was blank, so we re-coded it
    as a species of concern and then removed it from the data set because
    species of concern are not part of our review. We also made changes to
    records that contained errors. For example, the green sea turtle has two
    different populations. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported the
    total recovery expenditures for these two populations together. When
    expenditures were merged with species lists, this expenditure total was
    shown twice. To address that error we removed one expenditure total. All
    of these types of changes, 5 records with factual errors (or 0.4 percent
    of the records) and 9 with missing information (0.7 percent of the
    records), were reviewed and agreed to by all team analysts and
    supervisors. We also found and removed 14 duplicates and 27 records that
    were outside our scope (e.g., outside our date range or species managed by
    the National Marine Fisheries Service, not the Fish and Wildlife Service).
    On the basis of all of this work, we determined that the data on species
    and recovery plans we received from Fish and Wildlife Service were
    sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

    We then compared the expenditures on each species with the species'
    priority ranking for fiscal year 2000 through 2003. We grouped together
    species with similar rankings to deemphasize minor differences in species'
    rankings. Grouping species this way had the effect of eliminating the

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    taxonomic distinction among species found in the recovery priority
    guidelines. Table 5 shows the groupings.

    Table 5: GAO Groupings of Priority Numbers

                            GAO group Priority number 1, 1c

    GAO group 12, 2c 3, 3c

                                         4, 4c

    GAO group 25, 5c 6, 6c

                                         7, 7c

    GAO group 38, 8c 9, 9c

                                        10, 10c

    GAO group 411, 11c 12, 12c

                                        13, 13c

    GAO group 514, 14c 15, 15c

                                        16, 16c

    GAO group 617, 17c 18, 18c

    Source: GAO.

    We also assumed that the average cost to implement recovery plans in each
    group was the same. We made this assumption explicitly because the cost to
    implement individual recovery plans can vary substantially among species.
    For example, we analyzed the cost to implement 120 recovery plans (the
    only plans with these data available electronically) covering an estimated
    189 species (or 15 percent of listed species) and found that some plans
    are very costly-$107,516,000-and some are not-$18,000. However, many plans
    fall between these two extremes, costing between $1 million and $6
    million. We discussed this assumption with the Service, and they agreed to
    its reasonableness.

                            Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    The number of species in each priority group varied by year (see table 6).

    Table 6: Number of Species in Each Priority Group, by Year Number of species in
                                  each priority group

          Priority group       FY 2000       FY 2001      FY 2002         FY 2003
                1                     395      408          416               415
                2                     432      436          444               448
                3                     290      285          286               284
                4                      47      47            46                47
                5                      45      46            47                48
                6                       7       6            6                  6

    Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    In order to analyze overall average spending on a per species bases, we
    calculated weighted average expenditures per species by priority ranking.
    To do this we weighted the average expenditure per species for a specific
    priority group and fiscal year by the proportion: (Number of species in a
    particular priority group and fiscal year)/ (Number of species in same
    priority group over all fiscal years).

    In addressing our second objective, to determine what factors influence
    the Service's recovery funding allocation decisions, we interviewed
    managers and recovery biologists in the Service's recovery division in
    headquarters, all seven regions and a nonprobability sample of 10 field
    offices.2 We selected at least one field office from each region and
    selected a second field office from the two regions that collectively have
    lead responsibility for more than 50 percent of the endangered and
    threatened species in the United States. Within each region, we selected
    field offices that have lead responsibility for a high number of species
    relative to other field offices in that region. The region responsible for
    the largest number of species, the Pacific region, is operated as two
    divisions, and we selected a field office from each division. The field
    office locations in our nonprobability sample were:

    2Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
    about a population because in a nonprobability sample some elements of the
    population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
    selected as part of the sample.

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    o  Hawaii (Pacific Region)

    o  Sacramento, California (Pacific Region)

    o  Arizona (Southwest Region)

    o  Columbia, Missouri (Great Lakes Region)

    o  Cookeville, Tennessee (Southeast Region)

    o  Vero Beach, Florida (Southeast Region)

    o  Virginia (Northeast Region)

    o  Utah (Mountain-Prairie Region)

    o  Anchorage, Alaska (Alaska Region)

    o  Fairbanks, Alaska (Alaska Region)

    Through our interviews we obtained information on how recovery funds are
    allocated, the role of the recovery priority system, and suggested
    improvements to the recovery priority system. We compared the answers we
    received in these interviews to documents or expenditure data provided by
    the Service, to the extent this corroborating evidence was available.

    In addressing both objectives, we reviewed publicly available documents
    and other information obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Website. We also reviewed articles in academic and scientific literature
    related to recovery planning and recovery prioritization, including an
    extensive study of recovery plans conducted by the Society for
    Conservation Biology and funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

    We performed our work from February 2004 to January 2005, in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II

    Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    See comment 1.

    See comment 2.

    Appendix II
    Comments from the Department of the
    Interior

                                     See comment 3.

                                      Appendix II
                          Comments from the Department of the
                                        Interior

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
    letter dated March 11, 2005.

    GAO Comments 1.

    2.

    3.

    We agree that some of the recovery funds included in our analysis of how
    recovery fund allocations compare with the Service's recovery guidelines
    include funds for which Congress has provided direction that they be spent
    on particular projects or species. However, we do not believe that by
    including these funds we have underestimated the degree to which the
    Service's funding decisions are consistent with its recovery priority
    guidelines. First, we found that the Service spent its recovery funds in a
    manner generally consistent with species priority. Second, we analyzed a
    list, provided to us by the Service, of congressionally directed funds and
    associated projects for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. We compared this
    list with the priority rankings of the species associated with the
    projects in a way similar to how we compared species' expenditures and
    priority rankings in our report. We found that the list of congressionally
    directed funds resulted in a spending pattern similar to what we
    identified when we compared species' expenditures and priority rankings in
    our report. Thus, by including these funds in our analysis of how recovery
    funds allocations compare with the Service's recovery guidelines, we do
    not believe that we have underestimated the degree to which the Service's
    funding decisions are consistent with its recovery priority guidelines.

    We agree that the Endangered Species Act does not require it to report
    separately on how it spent its recovery funds by species. However,
    reporting this information could be part of an effective strategy to help
    ensure that the Service allocates recovery resources consistent with the
    priority guidelines over the long term and in a transparent fashion.

    In our report, we use the term "imperiled" instead of "threatened" to
    avoid confusion with the distinction the act makes between "threatened
    species" and "endangered species." We agree that the act does not state
    that the purpose for requiring the Service to establish guidelines for
    prioritizing the development and implementation of recovery plans was to
    address concerns that recovery funds were not being directed at the most
    imperiled species. We have modified the report accordingly.

    However, we disagree with the Department's contention that its recovery
    priority guidelines do not provide that funding should be

    Appendix II
    Comments from the Department of the
    Interior

    allocated preferentially to species with the highest priority ranking as
    depicted in table 2 of our report. The Department relies on a table in the
    guidelines that is virtually identical to table 2 in our report to
    describe its priority system. Section 4(h)(4) of the act specifically
    directs the Service to establish guidelines that shall include "a system
    for developing and implementing, on a priority basis, recovery plans under
    subsection (f) of this section." Further, the guidelines state that "the
    species with the highest degree of threat have the highest priority for
    preparing and implementing recovery plans." In addition, the guidelines
    state that they are to "aid in determining how to make the most
    appropriate use of resources available to implement the act."

    The Department also contends that allocating funding preferentially to
    species with the highest priority ranking is contrary to section
    4(f)(1)(A) of the act. This provision, which was added in a 1982 amendment
    to the act, states that recovery plans shall, to the maximum extent
    practicable, give priority to species most likely to benefit from such
    plans, particularly those that are, or may be, in conflict with
    construction or other development projects, or other forms of economic
    activity. The guidelines specifically state that the priority system
    established by the guidelines "is intended to satisfy the requirements of
    the amended Act." Accordingly, the guidelines include likelihood to
    benefit from recovery plans and conflict as factors.

    We agree with the Department that focusing on opportunities for
    partnerships where multiple parties will work to the benefit of the
    species is consistent with section 4(f)(1)(A) of the act. In fact, we
    conclude in our report that the Service's ability to be flexible in
    allocating its scarce recovery resources is the key to maximizing
    contributions from other organizations. However, we believe that this
    flexibility needs to occur within the bounds of a systematic and
    transparent process and make recommendations to this effect.

    Appendix III

                         GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                        GAO Contact Trish McClure (202) 512-6318

    Staff 	In addition to the individual named above, Charles Egan, Jaelith
    Hall-Rivera, Barry T. Hill, Summer Pachman, Paula Bonin, Judy Pagano, and

    Acknowledgments Cynthia Norris made key contributions to this report.

    GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
    and 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 The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
    documents at no cost

    is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
    every afternoon, go to

    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    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, Contact:
    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
    512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

    Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***