Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species	 
Are Largely Unknown (06-APR-06, GAO-06-463R).			 
                                                                 
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing	 
extinction (endangered species) or likely to face extinction	 
(threatened species) and the ecosystems upon which they depend.  
The act has long been a lightning rod for political debate about 
the extent to which the nation's natural resources should be	 
protected and how best to protect them. Implementation of the act
has also been the subject of numerous lawsuits that have consumed
significant program resources. Since the act's inception, about  
1,300 domestic species have been placed on the list of threatened
and endangered species. Supporters of the act claim it is an	 
indication of the act's success that only 9 of these species have
gone extinct; particularly, since by the time they are listed	 
species, they are often in critical condition. Critics, on the	 
other hand, counter that it is an indication of the act's failure
that only 17 of these species have "recovered," or improved to	 
the point that they no longer need the act's protection. However,
we believe that these numbers, by themselves, are not a good	 
gauge of the act's success or failure; additional information on 
when, if at all, a species can be expected to fully recover and  
be removed from the list would provide needed context for a fair 
evaluation of the act's performance. Similarly, estimates of the 
total costs to recover the species would be necessary to evaluate
whether sufficient resources have been devoted to recovery	 
efforts. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National	 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as "the
services," are the federal agencies responsible for ensuring	 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The act generally  
requires the services to develop and implement recovery plans for
the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened	 
species. As of January 2006, the services had finalized and	 
approved 558 recovery plans covering 1,049 species, or about 82  
percent of the 1,272 endangered or threatened species protected  
in the United States. Proposed amendments to the Endangered	 
Species Act are under consideration, and Congress has asked us to
provide information on the recovery plans themselves and the	 
progress made on their implementation to help facilitate this	 
effort. To address these issues, for a randomly selected sample  
of 107 recovery plans, we identified the extent to which plans	 
included (1) overall time and cost estimates to recover species  
and (2) the three key elements set forth in the 1988 amendment.  
We determined the plans' time and cost estimates and the extent  
to which they contain the key elements based on information	 
contained in the plans. We also conducted work on a group of 30  
selected species to determine the factors affecting the length of
recovery and the role that recovery plans have played in the	 
species' progress toward recovery. On February 8, 2006, we	 
briefed Congressional staff on our findings relating to our work 
addressing the 107 recovery plans. At Congressional request, we  
are transmitting with this report the briefing slides that	 
summarized our observations					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-463R					        
    ACCNO:   A51077						        
  TITLE:     Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover   
Species Are Largely Unknown					 
     DATE:   04/06/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Endangered animals 				 
	     Endangered plants					 
	     Endangered species 				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Proposed legislation				 
	     Wildlife						 
	     Wildlife conservation				 
	     Wildlife management				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-463R

     

     * Conclusion
     * Recommendations for Executive Action
     * Agency Comments
     * PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
          * Order by Mail or Phone

April 6, 2006

Congressional Requesters:

Subject: Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species
Are Largely Unknown

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing extinction
(endangered species) or likely to face extinction (threatened species) and
the ecosystems upon which they depend. The act has long been a lightning
rod for political debate about the extent to which the nation's natural
resources should be protected and how best to protect them. Implementation
of the act has also been the subject of numerous lawsuits that have
consumed significant program resources.1 Since the act's inception, about
1,300 domestic species have been placed on the list of threatened and
endangered species. Supporters of the act claim it is an indication of the
act's success that only 9 of these species have gone extinct;
particularly, since by the time they are listed species, they are often in
critical condition. Critics, on the other hand, counter that it is an
indication of the act's failure that only 17 of these species have
"recovered," or improved to the point that they no longer need the act's
protection. However, we believe that these numbers, by themselves, are not
a good gauge of the act's success or failure; additional information on
when, if at all, a species can be expected to fully recover and be removed
from the list would provide needed context for a fair evaluation of the
act's performance. Similarly, estimates of the total costs to recover the
species would be necessary to evaluate whether sufficient resources have
been devoted to recovery efforts.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as "the services," are the
federal agencies responsible for ensuring implementation of the Endangered
Species Act.2 The act generally requires the services to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered
and

1In 2002 and 2003, we reported that litigation relating to the Fish and
Wildlife Service's critical habitat program consumes significant program
resources. Courts remanded a number of these cases to FWS for
reconsideration of critical habitat designations; consequently, FWS
redesignated critical habitat for numerous species. At the time, we
recommended that FWS expedite its efforts to develop guidance on
designating critical habitat to reduce its exposure to future litigation.
See GAO, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best Available
Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for
Critical Habitat Designations, GAO-03-803 (Washington, D.C: Aug. 29,
2003); and Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds Are
Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized, GAO-02-581 (Washington,
D.C.: June 25, 2002).

2The act requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to
implement these responsibilities; the Secretaries have delegated
implementation authority to FWS and NMFS. FWS has primary responsibility
for fresh water and land species, while NMFS has primary responsibility
for anadromous fish and most marine species.

threatened species.3 As of January 2006, the services had finalized and
approved 558 recovery plans covering 1,049 species, or about 82 percent of
the 1,272 endangered or threatened species protected in the United States.

A 1988 amendment to the Endangered Species Act requires the services to
incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, three key elements in each
recovery plan:

(1) Site-specific management actions - descriptions of such site-specific
management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan's goal for the
conservation and survival of the species.

(2) Time and cost estimates - estimates of the time required and cost to
carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan's goal and to achieve
intermediate steps toward that goal.

(3) Recovery criteria - objective, measurable criteria which, when met,
would result in a determination, in accordance with provisions of the act,
that the species be removed from the list of threatened and endangered
species (i.e., delisted). Courts have found that the Endangered Species
Act requires the services to address each of five delisting factors to the
maximum extent practicable when designing recovery criteria.4 These five
delisting factors are the same factors that are considered when listing a
species: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range; (2) overutilization of the
species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting a species'
continued existence.

Both of the services have guidance for developing recovery plans. FWS's
guidance was issued in 1990 and states that, among other things, recovery
plans must include estimates of the time required for accomplishing
recovery, assuming that sufficient funds are provided, and cost estimates
to complete recovery of the species; if the estimate is uncertain, the
nature of the uncertainty must be discussed in the plan.5 FWS's guidance
also directs that recovery plans set forth precise, measurable criteria to
determine when recovery has been achieved (if it is achievable); however,
the five delisting factors are not specifically addressed in the guidance.
NMFS's recovery planning guidance, which was issued in 2004,

3A recovery plan is not required if the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Commerce finds that such a plan will not promote the
conservation of the species.

4See Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2001);
Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995). In Defenders
of Wildlife, the court remanded the recovery plan to FWS to incorporate
delisting criteria or to provide an adequate explanation regarding why
delisting criteria could not practicably be incorporated. In Fund for
Animals, the court remanded the plan back to FWS for revision of the
recovery criteria.

5U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Policy and
Guidelines for Planning and Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and
Threatened Species (May 25, 1990).

also discusses time and cost estimates and recovery criteria.6 NMFS's
guidance states that plans should include a cost estimate for complete
recovery and indicate the anticipated

year all recovery criteria could be met, if all actions were fully funded
at the indicated levels. Regarding recovery criteria, the guidance
recognizes that legal challenges to

recovery plans have affirmed the need to frame recovery criteria in terms
of the five delisting factors. However, the guidance does not direct staff
to address all five delisting factors or explain why it is not practicable
to do so.

Another key provision of the 1988 amendment to the act requires the
services to report biennially on efforts to develop and implement recovery
plans for all listed species, and on the status of all species for which
plans have been developed.7 The reports include, on a species-by-species
basis, information on the progress made to implement recovery actions and
on whether a species is declining, increasing, or stable or if its status
is uncertain. The reports are publicly available on the agencies' Web
pages. Because these reports provide, in a concise and easily accessible
format, summary information on all of the nearly 1,300 listed species,
they are valuable tools that can be used for understanding the progress
made on recovering species.

Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are under consideration,
and you have asked us to provide information on the recovery plans
themselves and the progress made on their implementation to help
facilitate this effort. To address these issues, for a randomly selected
sample of 107 recovery plans, we identified the extent to which plans
included (1) overall time and cost estimates to recover species and (2)
the three key elements set forth in the 1988 amendment. We determined the
plans' time and cost estimates and the extent to which they contain the
key elements based on information contained in the plans. We also
conducted work on a group of 30 selected species to determine the factors
affecting the length of recovery and the role that recovery plans have
played in the species' progress toward recovery. On February 8, 2006, we
briefed your staffs on our findings relating to our work addressing the
107 recovery plans. At your request, we are transmitting with this report
the briefing slides that summarized our observations (see encl. I). This
report presents the final results of our work analyzing these plans,
including recommendations to the services that we discussed with your
staffs. We will issue a later report to present our results on the work
related to the 30 selected species.

Because the Endangered Species Act only requires the services to include
the key elements to the maximum extent practicable, the absence of key
elements from a recovery plan does not necessarily mean that the services
have failed to meet statutory requirements. Courts have noted that the
phrase "to the maximum extent practicable" imposes a clear duty on the
services to include the key elements in the recovery plan to the extent
that it is feasible or possible. In a number of cases where the services
have not included key elements in recovery plans, courts have required
them to either include the missing element or to provide an explanation
regarding why its incorporation was not practicable. For purposes of this
report, we only evaluated whether the key elements were present in the
recovery plans and did not make any determinations regarding whether a
recovery plan met or failed to meet the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act.

6National Marine Fisheries Service, Interim Endangered and Threatened
Species Recovery Planning Guidance, (October 2004).

7In practice, the reports provide status information on all listed
species, regardless of whether they have a recovery plan or not.

We found the following:

Of the 107 plans we reviewed, 73 plans do not provide estimates of when
the species are expected to be recovered and 87 plans do not provide
estimates of the total cost to recover the species. When such estimates
are included, they vary widely. Of the 34 plans that provide a time
estimate, 7 plans indicate that the species were expected to have been
recovered by 2005;8 the remaining plans indicate that the species are
expected to be recovered within the next 50 years. Twenty of the 107 plans
include cost estimates. These plans have an average cost estimate for
recovery of $15.9 million and a median cost estimate of $1.4 million. The
highest estimate is $125 million to recover the Whooping crane and the
lowest is $58,000 to recover the Decurrent false aster-a flowering plant
in Illinois and Missouri. While both FWS and NMFS guidance documents
discuss including overall time and cost estimates for achieving recovery
in recovery plans, we found that most plans only included time and costs
estimates for implementing recovery actions for just a 5- to 7-year
period. FWS and NMFS recovery program officials told us that many plans do
not include overall time and cost estimates because of the difficulty in
developing precise estimates due to many uncertainties, such as the
availability and willingness of partners to aid in recovery efforts and
the uncertainty of biological responses to recovery actions. Officials
also said, however, that it would be possible to develop broad estimates
for most species. NMFS officials said that they anticipate that recovery
plans will include overall cost estimates for recovery, in accordance with
their recently issued guidance.

Almost all of the 107 recovery plans we reviewed have two of the three key
elements identified in the act, but few include the third element. First,
we found that all of the plans we reviewed include site-specific
management actions, although the level of specificity varies greatly. Some
plans contain many detailed actions; while others contain fewer, higher
level actions. In instances where little is known about the species, the
focus of site-specific management actions is often on research and data
gathering. Second, almost all of the 107 plans we reviewed include time
and cost estimates for implementing site-specific management actions; 4
plans did not contain this information, but stated that doing so was not
practicable.9 In contrast, only 5 of the 107 plans we reviewed included
the third element-recovery criteria that address all five delisting
factors. Twenty-three plans either state why providing recovery criteria
was not practicable or indicate that the species is thought to be extinct
or not recoverable. An additional 57 plans include some recovery criteria
but do not evidence consideration of all five delisting factors. The
remaining 22 plans do not include any recovery criteria for delisting and
do not state why providing such criteria was not practicable.

8The FWS reports that estimates contained in recovery plans are premised
on the assumption that the partners and resources needed to fully
implement the plans are available.

9In a number of instances, we found that task duration was described as
"continuous." In Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp. 2d 121
(D.D.C. 2001), the court made note of a number of tasks in the recovery
plan for the Sonoran pronghorn that were described as ongoing but that did
not appear to be of indefinite duration. The court remanded the recovery
plan to FWS to provide time estimates where practicable.

Conclusions

The success of the Endangered Species Act is difficult to measure because
some of the recovery plans we reviewed indicated that species were not
likely to be recovered for up to

50 years. Therefore, simply counting the number of extinct and recovered
species periodically or over time, without considering the recovery
prospects of listed species, provides limited insight into the overall
success of the services' recovery programs. An alternative measure of the
act's success would also consider estimates of if and when a species is
likely to be recovered and the resources needed to prevent its extinction
and promote its recovery. This information, however, has not been
routinely included in species' recovery plans. FWS's 1990 guidance states
that plans must include total time and cost estimates for recovery and
NMFS recently issued guidance stating that recovery plans should include
total time and cost estimates for recovery. Although developing precise
estimates may be difficult given the uncertainties involved, agency
officials agreed that broad estimates would be possible for most species.
Including such estimates in individual recovery plans and making them
easily accessible in a single report or other format, would not only
facilitate measuring program success but would also provide policy makers
with valuable information for identifying resource needs.

Furthermore, while both NMFS and FWS recognize the importance of
establishing recovery criteria, neither direct Service personnel to
address all five delisting factors in designing those recovery criteria.
As we have reported in the past, there is a long history of extensive
litigation on implementation of the Endangered Species Act that has
consumed significant program resources. Omissions of recovery criteria
evidencing consideration of all five delisting factors in plans may be
another opening for similar litigation. A proactive response to this issue
could save the services significant resources in avoided future
litigation.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To facilitate measuring the success of the Endangered Species Act and
provide policy makers with valuable information for identifying resource
needs, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce
direct the services to report estimates of the time and cost needed to
recover species in a single location that is easily accessible by Congress
and the public, (e.g., in the biennial recovery reports to Congress). To
accomplish this task, the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce should
ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, respectively, implement their current recovery planning
guidance when drafting or revising recovery plans so that plans routinely
estimate the overall time and cost to recover species.

To meet the Endangered Species Act's requirement that recovery plans, to
the maximum extent practicable, include recovery criteria and, to not
expose the services to a higher-than-necessary risk of litigation and
their attendant costs, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior
and Commerce direct the services to include in recovery planning guidance,
direction that all new and revised recovery plans have either recovery
criteria evidencing consideration of all five delisting factors or a
statement regarding why it is not practicable to do so.

Agency Comments

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce provided
written comments on a draft of this report (see enclosures II and III,
respectively). A summary of

their comments and our responses to them are included below. The
departments also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
into the report where appropriate.

The Department of the Interior generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations and provided information about how it intends to implement
the recommendations, including the title of the responsible official and
the target date for implementation.

The Department of Commerce also generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations but took issue with our statement that the courts have
found that the Endangered Species Act requires the services to address
each of the five delisting factors to the maximum extent practicable when
designing recovery criteria. Although the Department agreed to adopt our
recommendation that all new and revised recovery plans have either
recovery criteria evidencing consideration of all five delisting factors
or a statement as to why it is not practicable to do so, the Department
states that its current practice of addressing only those delisting
factors that are relevant to the species is consistent with recent court
rulings. However, court rulings, including one referenced in NMFS's
recovery planning guidance, contradict this statement. NMFS's guidance
includes a quote from a 1995 court case, which reads in part "the Court
necessarily concludes that the FWS, in designing objective, measurable
criteria, must address each of the five statutory delisting factors."10

Additionally, the Department of Commerce agreed with our recommendation
that the National Marine Fisheries Service include estimates of the time
and cost to recover species in a single, easily accessible location. To
accomplish this, we recommended that NMFS include in its recovery planning
guidance direction that time estimates for species recovery be included in
new and revised recovery plans. NMFS, however, has identified a provision
in its guidance that already requires this, although they note that their
guidance could be more explicit with regard to time estimates. We made
appropriate changes to our report.

Our scope and methodology are discussed in enclosure IV. We performed our
work from March 2005 through February 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

                                  - - - - - -

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Commerce, and interested congressional committees. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .

10Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995). See also
Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2001).

If you have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our
Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were Charles T.
Egan, Trish McClure, Maria Vargas, Amy Webbink, and Mary Welch.

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Enclosures - 4

List of congressional requesters:

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Chairman

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Lincoln Chafee

Chairman

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard W. Pombo

Chairman

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II

Ranking Minority Member

           Committee on Resources
           House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael D. Crapo

           United States Senate

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg

United States Senate

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

United States Senate

The Honorable Harry Reid

United States Senate

The Honorable Craig Thomas

United States Senate

Enclosure I

Enclosure II

                  Comments from the Department of the Interior

Enclosure III

Enclosure IV

                             Scope and Methodology

We identified the 107 recovery plans we reviewed by randomly selecting a
probability sample of 99 recovery plans from the 580 plans either for
which the Fish and Wildlife Service has primary responsibility or for
which it shares responsibility with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS).11 In addition, we included all eight recovery plans for which NMFS
has primary responsibility. We then determined the plans' time and cost
estimates and the extent to which they contain key elements based on
information contained in the plans. For the purposes of this report, we
only evaluated whether the key elements were present in the recovery plans
and did not make any determinations regarding whether a recovery plan met
or failed to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

(360574)

11We selected our sample of recovery plans in June 2005 and included in
our universe the final and draft plans available at that time.

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.

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 GAO Reports and Testimony

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 posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***