Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to
Recover Select Species (06-SEP-06, GAO-06-730).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (the services) are responsible for
administration and implementation of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. The act generally requires the services to develop
recovery plans for endangered and threatened species--species
facing extinction or likely to face extinction, respectively.
Recovery plans identify threats to the species' survival and the
actions needed to mitigate those threats. Proposed amendments to
the act are under consideration and GAO was asked to provide
information to facilitate this effort. In April 2006, GAO issued
a report providing high-level information on the extent to which
recovery plans contain estimates of when species are expected to
be recovered, among other things. This follow-on report provides
more detailed information on the factors that affect species
recovery and the importance of recovery plans in recovery
efforts. For 31 species--selected because they were nearing
recovery, or had significant attention devoted to them and thus
would be expected to be making progress towards recovery--GAO (1)
identifies factors affecting the length of time to recover the
species and (2) describes the role recovery plans have played in
recovering these species. The Department of the Interior agreed
with the facts presented in this report. The Department of
Commerce declined to comment.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-730
ACCNO: A60325
TITLE: Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of
Time to Recover Select Species
DATE: 09/06/2006
SUBJECT: Conservation
Conservation programs
Ecosystem management
Ecosystems
Endangered species
Program evaluation
Wildlife
Wildlife conservation
******************************************************************
** 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-06-730
* Report to Congressional Requesters
* September 2006
* ENDANGERED SPECIES
* Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species
* Contents
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Certain
Threatened and Endangered Species
* Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Delisted
or Likely to Be Delisted within the Next 25 Years
* Primary Threats Have Been, or Are Being, Mitigated for
Some Species
* Some Species Are More Prevalent Than Initially Thought
and/or the Species' Habitat Is Being Protected
* Some Species Are Likely to Respond Quickly to Recovery
Efforts
* Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Likely
Far from Recovery
* Some Species Respond Slowly to Recovery Efforts
* Some Species' Habitats Are Difficult to Protect
* Key Information Is Lacking about the Threats Some
Species Face
* Recovery Plans Play an Important Role in Recovering Certain
Threatened and Endangered Species
* Implementation of Recovery Plan Actions Has Been the Primary
Driver in Recovering 13 Species
* Recovery for 17 Species is Driven by Both the Recovery Plan
and Other Factors
* Agency Comments
* Scope and Methodology
* Information on 31 Select Species
* Mammals
* Black-Footed Ferret
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Columbian White-Tailed Deer (Douglas County Population)
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Florida Panther
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Gray Wolf (Western Great Lakes Recovery Population)
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Indiana Bat
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Northern Right Whale
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western DPSs)
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* West Indian Manatee (Florida Population)
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Birds
* Bald Eagle (Northern States Recovery Area)
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Cost and Partnerships
* Whooping Crane
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Fishes
* Borax Lake Chub
* Threats
* Recovery Plan Role
* Cost and Partnerships
* Colorado Pikeminnow
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Razorback Sucker
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Rio Grande Silvery Minnow
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Snails
* Magazine Mountain Shagreen
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Insects
* Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Crustaceans
* Socorro Isopod
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Cost and Partnerships
* Plants
* Ash Meadows Gumplant, Ash Meadows Sunray, and Spring-Loving
Centaury
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Eggert's Sunflower
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Johnston's Frankenia
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Papery Whitlow-Wort
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Cost and Partnerships
* Truckee Barberry
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Costs and Partnerships
* Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus
* Threats
* Recovery Plan Role
* Costs and Partnerships
* Virginia Round-Leaf Birch
* Threats
* Role of Recovery Plan
* Cost and Partnerships
* Comments from the Department of the Interior
Report to Congressional Requesters
September 2006
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species
Contents
Tables
September 6, 2006Letter
Congressional Requesters
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing extinction
(endangered species) or likely to face extinction in the foreseeable
future (threatened species), and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
The act has long been a lightning rod for political debate about the
extent to which the nation's natural resources should be protected, and
how best to protect them. Proponents of the act, and what it seeks to
accomplish, believe that it is important to preserve the unique genetic
characteristics of each species as a practical response to the impact that
humans are having on the earth, and may also believe there is a moral
obligation to do so. Some critics of the act deemphasize the importance of
preserving every individual species and argue that doing so, in many
cases, is too costly-especially when implementation of the act results in
restricting uses of public and private land and resources. Others are
critical of the veracity of the data used to make decisions under the act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as "the services," are the
federal agencies responsible for administration and implementation of the
Endangered Species Act. FWS has primary responsibility for fresh water and
land species, while NMFS has primary responsibility for anadromous fish
and most marine species. The Endangered Species Act outlines criteria that
the services must apply to determine whether a species warrants the
protection of the act, and the process to follow to place the species on
the list of threatened and endangered species. The act also generally
requires the services to develop recovery plans for the conservation and
survival of listed species.1
While the act has many provisions that could be evaluated, one of the most
important measures of its success is the number of species that have
"recovered," or improved to the point that they no longer need the act's
protection. Since the act's inception in 1973, about 1,300 domestic
species have been placed on the list of threatened and endangered species,
but only
a few have been removed (delisted).2 Supporters of the act claim it is an
indication of success that only nine species protected by the act have
become extinct. Critics, on the other hand, claim it is an indication of
failure that only 17 species protected by the act have recovered.
Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are under consideration,
and you asked us to provide information on recovery plans and progress
made on their implementation to facilitate this effort. In an April 2006
report, we provided high-level information on 107 randomly selected
recovery plans covering about 200 species.3 We reported on the extent to
which these plans contained estimates of when a species is expected to
have recovered, among other things. In this report, for a nonprobability
sample of 31 species, we provide a more in-depth review of the efforts
undertaken to recover species. We selected these species because they are
nearing recovery or had significant attention devoted to them and, thus,
would be expected to be making progress towards recovery. For these 31
species, we (1) identify factors affecting the length of time to recover
the species and (2) describe the role that recovery plans have played in
recovering these species.
FWS is responsible for 28 of the 31 species we reviewed. NMFS is
responsible for the remaining three species-the northern right whale and
two distinct population segments (DPS) of the Steller sea lion.4 Our
assessment of the recovery efforts and description of the role of recovery
plans in those efforts is based primarily on species' recovery plans,
Federal Register notices associated with the species, and information
provided by biologists at the services that are responsible for recovering
the species we reviewed. We obtained, from FWS and NMFS biologists,
estimated time frames for delisting many of the species we reviewed. It is
important to note that these estimates were based on the assumption that
needed actions would take place, even though funding may not be available
to conduct these actions, or the actions may be out of the services'
control. Consequently, the estimates provided should be considered
best-case scenarios. Salmon, steelhead, and the desert tortoise were
excluded from our analyses because we have issued comprehensive reports on
these species.5 A more detailed description of our scope and methodology
is presented in appendix I. Information on each of the species we reviewed
is presented in appendix II. We performed our work between September 2005
and August 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief
Many factors affect the length of time it will take to recover the 31
species we reviewed, and some may not be recovered at all. These factors
range from the successful removal of the primary threat faced by a
species, to difficulty protecting a species' habitat or difficulty
understanding what threats a species is facing. The length of time it has
taken, or is expected to take, to recover these species, ranges from less
than a decade to possibly more than a century; specifically:
o Nineteen of the thirty-one species have been recently delisted, or are
likely to be delisted, within the next 25 years. Each will likely spend
less than 50 years on the endangered species list. Eight of these species
faced a primary threat that has been or is being mitigated. Six species
are more prevalent than biologists thought at the time they were listed,
and/or FWS has been effective in protecting their habitats. The other five
species are the beneficiaries of recovery efforts involving a wide range
of stakeholders and significant resources, and are expected to respond
relatively quickly to these efforts.
o The remaining 12 of the 31 species we reviewed are much farther away
from being delisted and could spend more than 50 years on the endangered
species list; for some, recovery is uncertain. The services' biologists
believe that 4 of these 12 species will eventually recover, but not for
many decades, because the species are slow to respond to recovery
efforts-for example, because they reproduce slowly or depend on habitat
that takes a long time to develop. FWS is having difficulty recovering the
remaining eight species: five because they cannot secure needed habitat,
and three because they do not know enough about the threats facing the
species or how to mitigate these threats. FWS cannot predict whether or
when a successful recovery of these eight species will be possible.
For all but one of the species we reviewed, recovery plans played an
important role in recovery efforts by identifying many of the actions that
the services' biologists deem most important to the recovery of the
species. Although not all of these species are nearing recovery, the
services' biologists report that the success that these species have had
can be attributed, at least in part, to actions in the species' recovery
plans. For example, recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker depends on
having sufficient habitat-the species nests in cavities that are pecked
out of old pine trees, which logging largely eliminated from the
woodpecker's range. The recovery plan identifies measures to protect
woodpecker habitat, including conservation agreements with private
landowners, as well as steps to provide artificial nest boxes until pines
mature enough to provide natural habitat for the birds. The services'
biologists told us that these actions have significantly improved this
species' prospects for recovery. However, for about one-half of the
species we reviewed, the services' biologists also identified actions
important to the recovery of the species that were beyond those included
in the species' recovery plans. For example, the banning of the
insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) by the Environmental
Protection Agency in 1972 has been critical to recovery of the bald eagle,
but was not included in its recovery plan. One of the species we reviewed,
the dwarf-flowered heartleaf-a small flowering plant found in North
Carolina and South Carolina-does not have a recovery plan because, with
new populations of the species repeatedly being found, information about
the species is changing rapidly. The species may be delisted without a
recovery plan.
We provided the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Department
of Commerce (Commerce) with a draft of this report for review and comment.
The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the information
presented in the report (see app. III). Commerce declined to provide an
overall assessment of the draft because the report does not contain
recommendations.
Background
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is to conserve
threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. The act defines conservation as the recovery of threatened and
endangered species so that they no longer need the protective measures
afforded by the act. An endangered species is a species facing extinction
throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range; threatened species
are those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The act
requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish, in the Federal
Register, a list of species determined to be threatened or endangered.
Included in the definition of species are subspecies of animals and
plants, and DPSs of vertebrate species.
The act generally requires the services to develop recovery plans for the
conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species, unless the
services determine that a plan will not promote their conservation. The
act directs the services, to the maximum extent practicable, to
incorporate in each recovery plan (1) a description of site-specific
management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goal for the
conservation and survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable
criteria that will result in a determination that the species can be
removed from the list of threatened and endangered species (i.e.,
delisted); and (3) estimates of the time and cost required to carry out
those measures needed to achieve the plan's goal.
The services develop and implement recovery plans, among other actions, to
reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its long-term
survival. To do this, recovery plans aim to identify threats to the
species' survival and the actions needed to mitigate those threats. A
recovery plan may include a variety of methods and procedures to recover
listed species, such as habitat acquisition and restoration to prevent
extinction or further decline, and other on-the-ground activities for
managing and monitoring endangered and threatened species. The services'
officials also told us that recovery plans are important for communicating
needed actions to other federal agencies, state and local agencies,
researchers, industry, private landowners, and others, because the
services often depend on other entities to implement recovery actions. For
example, in many cases, FWS does not have jurisdiction to implement
recovery actions on lands occupied by endangered species, which is
important because loss of habitat is often the principal cause of species'
declines. Recovery plans can take years or decades to fully implement,
depending on the needs of the species covered by the plan. As of May 2006,
the services had approved 580 recovery plans covering about 1,080 species
(or about 83 percent) of the 1,300 domestic species protected by the act.
Once a species recovers, it can be delisted.6 To determine that a species
is recovered and ready to be delisted, the services follow a process
similar to that used to list a species-they propose delisting a species in
the Federal Register and seek public comment on the action before they
finalize the delisting. The act requires the services to use the same
criteria to delist species that are used to list species. Specifically, to
delist a species, the services must determine that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered based on an assessment of five factors:
(1) whether there is a present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range; (2) whether the species is
subject to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) whether disease or predation is a factor; (4)
whether existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate; and (5) whether
other natural and manmade factors are affecting the species' continued
existence.
Besides delisting species because they have recovered, species can also be
delisted if they are found to be extinct, or if the original data used to
list the species is found to be in error. For example, if additional
analysis finds the species is not unique but rather a member of a more
prevalent species, its listing becomes unwarranted. As of May 2006, FWS
reports that a total of 41 species have been removed from the list of
threatened and endangered species-9 species because they have been
declared extinct, 15 species because original data used to list the
species was in error, and 17 species as a result of recovery efforts.7
In addition, the act requires that the services report biennially to
certain congressional committees on efforts to develop and implement
recovery plans. The services implement this requirement through separate
biennial reports to Congress. FWS's reports satisfy the act's reporting
requirement by including a statistic called "recovery achieved." The
recovery achieved statistic is meant to estimate the extent to which the
recovery objectives for each species have been achieved and reflects the
species' overall progress towards recovery; it is not the proportion of
discrete actions in the recovery plan that has been completed. It is
expressed as a percentage range-0 to 25 percent, 26 to 50 percent, 51 to
75 percent, or 76 to 100 percent. The FWS report includes this statistic
for species under FWS's jurisdiction, as well as for those managed jointly
with NMFS. NMFS's biennial reports to Congress do not include a recovery
achieved statistic, but rather a narrative description of efforts to
implement recovery plans. Additionally, the act requires FWS to submit an
annual report to Congress on federal expenditures for the conservation of
all endangered or threatened species, as well as expenditures by states
receiving federal financial assistance for such conservation activities.
Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Certain Threatened and
Endangered Species
Many factors are responsible for the varying length of time it will take
to recover the 31 species we reviewed. The services' biologists report
that 19 of these species are likely to be delisted within the next 25
years because (1) the primary threats faced by the species have been or
are being mitigated; (2) the species are more prevalent than thought at
the time they were listed and/or habitat has been secured for the species;
or (3) they are the beneficiaries of extensive recovery efforts and are
expected to respond relatively quickly to those efforts. In contrast, the
remaining 12 species are far from recovery because (1) they respond slowly
to recovery actions; (2) the services have not been successful in
protecting essential habitat; or (3) there are gaps in knowledge about the
threats challenging their survival, or how to mitigate these threats.
Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Delisted or Likely to
Be Delisted within the Next 25 Years
Nineteen of the thirty-one species we reviewed have already been delisted,
or are likely to be recovered and delisted within the next 25 years. The
services' biologists expect that many will be delisted within the next 10
years, and all of these species will likely spend less than 50 years on
the endangered species list. Eight of these species are recovered, or are
nearing recovery, and will likely be delisted in 10 years because they
faced primary threats that have been or are being mitigated. Six of the
species are recovered, or are nearing recovery, and most will likely be
delisted within the next 10 years because they are more prevalent than
thought at the time they were listed, and/or key habitat is being
protected. The remaining 5 of the 19 species are expected to recover and
be delisted within 25 years, because they are expected to respond
relatively quickly to recovery efforts involving significant resources and
a wide range of stakeholders.
Primary Threats Have Been, or Are Being, Mitigated for Some Species
Eight of the species we reviewed are recovered, or are nearing recovery,
because the primary threats facing the species have been, or are being,
mitigated. These species are likely to be delisted within the next 10
years. The bald eagle is one example. The primary threat to the eagle's
survival was the widespread use of DDT, an insecticide that caused thin
egg shells and reproductive failure. Thus, although there were other steps
that needed to be taken (primarily addressing loss of important habitat),
the banning of DDT in 1972 was critical to achieving the bald eagle's
recovery. FWS reports that the eagle is recovered and has recently
proposed delisting the species. Another example is the Magazine Mountain
shagreen-a land snail found only on the north side of Magazine Mountain in
Arkansas. The primary threat to this species was human use of its habitat
or areas close to its habitat. Specifically, the Department of Defense
considered using Magazine Mountain for military exercises, and the state
of Arkansas proposed building a visitor's center and related facilities on
the summit of the mountain-the highest peak in the state. After the snail
was listed, however, the Department of Defense withdrew its plans for
military exercises in the area, and the visitor's center and associated
facilities were designed and built so that potential impacts from
construction and operation have been mitigated. FWS biologists told us
that the snail's population is stable, but that a proposed 3-year study to
gather additional biological information about the species needs to be
completed before the species can be proposed for delisting. Table 1
summarizes some key details about the eight species.
Table 1: Species Facing a Primary Threat That Has Been, or Is Being,
Mitigated
Species name Year species was Primary threat that has been,
listed and or is being, mitigated
target delisting
time framea, b
Bald eagle Listed: The insecticide DDT causes
1967/1978c reproductive failure in bald
eagles. This threat was
Proposed for mitigated when the
delisting: 1999 Environmental Protection
and 2006 Agency banned DDT in 1972.
Habitat protections and
Anticipated to guidance to avoid disturbing
be delisted: by nesting sites have also
2010 helped. FWS proposed delisting
the eagle in 1999; however,
action was delayed because of
legal concerns. FWS
reinitiated the process to
delist the bald eagle in
February 2006.
Borax Lake chub (fish) Listed: 1980 The primary threats were
geothermal development, and
Anticipated to shoreline alteration due to
be delisted: by grazing. Legislation prevented
2015 geothermal development and
land acquisition is protecting
shoreline.
Columbian white-tailed Listed: 1967 Habitat protection via land
deer-Douglas County DPSd acquisition and hunting
Delisted: 2003 restrictions were critical to
the deer's recovery and
subsequent delisting in July
2003.
Gray wolf-western Great Listed: 1967 Human predation was the
Lakes recovery population primary threat facing the gray
Proposed for wolf; for instance, wolves
delisting: 2006 were frequently killed by
farmers to protect their
Anticipated to livestock from predation.
be delisted: by Programs that removed
2010 livestock-killing wolves, and
compensated farmers who lost
livestock to wolves, helped
reduce this practice.
Delisting has been delayed due
to legal questions about how
to delist this population,
since all gray wolves are
currently listed as a single
entity rather than as distinct
population segments.
Papery Listed: 1987 Habitat has been protected and
whitlow-wort-central restored through land
Florida subspecies (plant) Anticipated to acquisition and management
be delisted: by activities.
2010
Steller sea lion-eastern Listed: 1990 The killing of Steller sea
DPSd lions by humans (for example,
Anticipated to to protect fishing gear or to
be delisted: by reduce population numbers) was
2010 a major threat that has been
prohibited.
Magazine Mountain shagreen Listed: 1989 Two planned actions that could
(land snail) have affected the species'
Anticipated to habitat were withdrawn or
be delisted: by mitigated.
2010
Virginia round-leaf birch Listed: 1978 Helping propagation of
(tree) seedlings in the wild and
Anticipated to protecting them until they
be delisted: by could withstand herbivory
2015 helped ensure the species'
survival. Additionally,
distributing seedlings to the
public helped reduce illegal
collecting.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
aTarget time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery actions
are taken. However, many factors, including availability of funding,
cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and responsiveness of the
species, may render these time frames unattainable or obsolete. We present
estimates in 5-year increments.
bSpecies with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species
Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species Conservation
Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of threatened and
endangered species under the 1973 act.
cThe bald eagle was first listed in 1967, but the listing only applied to
bald eagles in southern states. FWS later determined that there was no
morphological or geographical basis to distinguish northern and southern
eagles and extended protection to all bald eagles in the 48 conterminous
states in 1978.
dA DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes of
listing, is treated as a species under the Endangered Species Act.
Almost all of the eight species nearing recovery due to mitigation of a
primary threat were included in the sample of species we reviewed because,
among other reasons, in FWS's fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery report to
Congres, these species were reported to have achieved 76 to 100 percent of
their recovery. The one exception is the Steller sea lion, which we
selected because there was a relatively high level of federal and state
expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003. (NMFS does
not report a recovery achieved statistic for species for which it is
responsible.)
Some Species Are More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or the Species'
Habitat Is Being Protected
Six of the species we reviewed have recovered, or are nearing recovery,
because they are more prevalent than thought when listed, and/or FWS has
been successful in protecting important habitat. The services' biologists
expect that all but one of these species will be delisted within the next
10 years. After a species is listed, it typically receives more attention;
sometimes this attention comes in the form of additional funding to survey
for the species, which can lead to finding additional individuals or
populations. The Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly is an example of a
species where the discovery of additional populations, coupled with
management actions to protect those populations, could result in the
species being delisted within the next 6 years. When the butterfly was
listed in 1991, there were only two known colonies and a few individual
butterflies that had been located at two other sites. However, since that
time, monitoring has uncovered nine additional colonies. Habitat
protections, such as prohibitions on collecting all types of butterflies
in key habitat areas, have also helped this species. FWS biologists
believe that the species is nearing recovery but, as some of the colonies
were only discovered between 4 and 5 years ago, additional monitoring is
needed. The recovery plan calls for population levels to have remained
stable for 10 years before the species is considered recovered.
Besides finding additional populations, sometimes a species is determined
to be more abundant than originally thought because of changes to how the
species is taxonomically classified. For example, the Truckee barberry, a
small evergreen shrub found in California, was delisted after it was
reclassified and included as part of a more common species that is not
threatened or endangered. Table 2 summarizes some key details for these
six species.
Table 2: Species More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or Having
Habitat Protections
Species name Year species was Prevalence and habitat protection
listed and target factors
delisting time
framea
Dwarf-flowered Listed: 1989 Additional populations were
heartleaf (plant) discovered, but some habitat
Anticipated to be still needs protection.
delisted: by 2015
Eggert's sunflower Listed: 1997 Additional populations were
(plant) discovered, and FWS secured
Delisted: 2005 conservation agreements from
public and private landowners to
protect and restore habitat.
Protective actions include
burning, mowing, or thinning
plants that compete with the
species.
Johnston's frankenia Listed: 1984 Landowners initially resisted
(plant) requests to survey for the
Proposed for species but eventually
delisting: 2003 reconsidered; additional
populations were subsequently
Anticipated to be discovered. Conservation
delisted: 2006 agreements with private
landowners now protect the
species' habitat.
Truckee barberry Listed: 1979 At the time of listing, it was
(plant) not clear how the Truckee
Delisted: 2003 barberry was related to other
species. Taxonomic analyses later
determined that this species is
the same as another much more
prevalent species.
Uinta Basin hookless Listed: 1979 The species is more prevalent
cactus than originally thought, but
Anticipated to be still needs habitat protections.
delisted: by 2025
Uncompahgre fritillary Listed: 1991 Additional populations were
butterfly discovered, and populations on
Anticipated to be federal land have been protected
delisted: by 2015 by eliminating species collection
and reducing access to species
habitat.
Source: FWS.
aTarget time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery actions
are taken. However, many factors, including availability of funding,
cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and responsiveness of the
species, may render these time frames unattainable or obsolete. We present
estimates in 5-year increments.
As with the species in table 1, all of the six species that are nearing
recovery because they are more prevalent (and/or because their habitat has
been protected) were included in our sample because they were reported to
have 76 to 100 percent of their recovery achieved in FWS's fiscal year
2001-2002 recovery report to Congress.
Some Species Are Likely to Respond Quickly to Recovery Efforts
Five of the species we reviewed are likely to be recovered within the next
25 years, because they are expected to respond relatively quickly to
focused recovery efforts with many stakeholders and significant resources.
For example, the Rio Grande silvery minnow, a fish that rarely exceeds 4
inches, was historically found in the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers.
However, habitat degradation restricted the fish to 5 percent of its
historic range, all in the Rio Grande. To recover the minnow and other
endangered species in the area (including the southwestern willow
flycatcher, which is also reviewed in this report), the river is being
restored to a more natural state. The restoration will transform the
deeply channeled river with high banks that isolate the river from the
surrounding floodplain to a more gently flowing river with broader, lower
banks that will provide eddies and slack water for juvenile minnows. To
achieve this, a myriad of property owners and water-rights interests must
be coordinated. Specifically, the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program-a broad coalition of federal, tribal, and local
governments; property owners; and others-is leading efforts to restore the
river. Efforts are underway to physically manipulate the river banks, and
the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are
manipulating the river's flow to create floods that reconnect the river
with the surrounding floodplain. FWS is introducing captively-bred minnows
to increase the population size. FWS biologists report that manipulating
the river's flow regime is an effective way to create habitat, and that
minnow populations increase rapidly when provided with good habitat. Table
3 summarizes some key details about the minnow and four other species that
are responding quickly, or expected to respond quickly, to recovery
actions.
Table 3: Species Expected to Respond Relatively Quickly to Extensive
Recovery Efforts
Species name Year species was Stakeholder involvement and resource
listed and target investment
delisting time
framea,b
Colorado pikeminnow Listed: 1967 This extensive recovery program
(fish) involves significant resources
Anticipated to be (about $200 million since 1989 on
delisted: by 2015 the pikeminnow and other species)
and a large number of
partners-including federal and state
agencies, tribes, and private sector
entities. Key actions include
providing water to ensure adequate
flows, and controlling introductions
of nonnative recreational fish
species that compete with and prey
on the pikeminnow. The effort to
recover the pikeminnow is part of a
larger effort that includes three
other fish species including the
razorback sucker, which is also
profiled in this report. Because the
species breeds annually, biologists
believe that successful
implementation of recovery actions
would result in the species
recovering relatively quickly.
Razorback sucker Listed: 1991 This extensive recovery program
(fish) involves significant resources
Anticipated to be (about $200 million since 1989 on
delisted: by 2025 the razorback sucker and other
species) and a large number of
partners-including federal and state
agencies, tribes, and private
entities. Key actions include land
acquisition of floodplain habitat
and controlling introductions of
nonnative recreational fish species
that compete with and prey on the
sucker. The effort to recover the
sucker is part of a larger effort
focused on it and three other fish,
including the Colorado pikeminnow,
which is also profiled in this
report. Because the species breeds
annually, biologists believe that
successful implementation of
recovery actions would result in the
species recovering relatively
quickly.
Rio Grande silvery Listed: 1994 This extensive recovery program
minnow involves significant resources
Anticipated to be (about $45 million since 2001) and a
delisted: by 2030 large number of partners-including
state and local agencies, and
private landowners. Key actions
include creating needed habitat and
introducing captively-bred minnows.
Habitat can be created relatively
quickly and populations can increase
rapidly in the presence of good
habitat.
Southwestern willow Listed: 1995 A large number of stakeholders were
flycatcher (bird) involved in developing the recovery
Anticipated to be plan for the species, and this has
delisted: by 2025 resulted in wide support for the
species. The species' biology also
helps with recovery, as it uses a
variety of habitats that are easy to
establish and become available to
the species quickly. The species
also reproduces annually. About $40
million has been spent since 1995
developing the recovery plan and
implementing recovery actions.
Steller sea Listed: 1990 This is an extensive recovery
lion-western DPSc program involving significant
Anticipated to be resource investment (over $167
delisted: by 2030 million since 1992, including
efforts to recover the eastern DPS).
Actions taken include extensive
research, closures of fishery areas,
and reductions in disturbances at
breeding sites. Although uncertainty
exists about the cause of both the
decline and increase in sea lion
populations, the annual growth rate
of the western DPS reached target
levels of 3 percent in 2000 and NMFS
biologists believe this trend will
continue.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
aTarget time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery actions
are taken. However, many factors, including availability of funding,
cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and responsiveness of the
species, may render these time frames unattainable or obsolete. We present
estimates in 5-year increments.
bSpecies with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species
Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species Conservation
Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of threatened and
endangered species under the 1973 act.
cA DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for the purposes of
listing under the Endangered Species Act, is treated as a species.
In contrast to the species in tables 1 and 2, these species were included
in our sample primarily because there was a relatively high level of
federal and state expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year
2003. None of the four for which FWS is responsible were reported to have
76 to 100 percent of their recovery achieved in FWS's fiscal year
2001-2002 recovery report to Congress.
Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Likely Far from
Recovery
The recovery efforts for 12 of the 31 species we reviewed are far from
complete, and the outcome for some is uncertain. These species are likely
to spend at least 50 years on the endangered species list, some
significantly longer than that. The services' biologists believe that four
of these species will likely recover, but not for many decades-they
respond slowly to recovery efforts. An additional five species are far
from recovery because FWS is unable to protect habitat necessary for the
species' recovery. For the three remaining species, not enough is known
about the threats they face, or how to mitigate those threats, to predict
whether or when a successful recovery is possible.
Some Species Respond Slowly to Recovery Efforts
For four species we reviewed, recovery efforts are far from complete
because the species respond slowly to these efforts. For example, the
species may have a relatively low reproductive rate; alternatively, it may
depend on habitat that takes a long time to develop to the point that it
is useful to the species. Although the services' biologists are optimistic
that these four species will eventually recover, they do not believe this
will occur in the foreseeable future. For example, NMFS biologists expect
the northern right whale to recover eventually, but not for many decades.
This whale population was brought to extremely low levels by commercial
whaling. Although an international agreement has protected the northern
right whale from commercial whaling worldwide since 1935, populations
remain extremely depleted-the current population estimate is about 300
individuals. The main threat the whale still faces is human-caused
mortality by fishing gear entanglement and collisions with ships. NMFS
biologists believe the right whale has a high potential for recovery
because the threats to the species are known and can be addressed-actions
are being implemented that have reduced mortality associated with fishing
gear and ships. However, NMFS biologists also believe it will take a long
time for the whale to recover because of its very low population and slow
reproduction. Table 4 summarizes some key details for these four species.
Table 4: Species Expected to Recover but That Respond Relatively Slowly to
Recovery Efforts
Species name Year species Reason for relatively slow recovery
was listeda
Northern right whale Listed: 1970 This species lives up to 70 years and
(north Atlantic reproduces infrequently-once every 3 to
population) 5 years. Commercial whaling severely
depleted the population (the current
population is only about 300
individuals). Extensive efforts are
being taken to reduce whale injuries and
mortalities caused by fishing gear
entanglement and ship strikes, but the
species' low reproductive rate and small
population will require a long recovery
period.
Red-cockaded Listed: 1970 The species depends on habitat that was
woodpecker nearly eliminated and takes a long time
to develop. It also has very selective
nesting behavior. It pecks out cavities
in old pine trees, and creating a
suitable nest cavity can take a decade.
However, much of the pine forests in the
woodpeckers' habitat have been logged
and adversely affected by fire
suppression and other activities. As a
result, it will be decades before these
forests develop to the point that they
can be used by the species, and it could
take more than 70 years for the species
to be delisted.
West Indian manatee Listed: 1967 Significant efforts to reduce
(Florida population) human-caused mortality (such as from
collisions with boats) are having a
positive effect, but manatees remain
extremely vulnerable to mortality due to
a lack of warm-water wintering sites.
Manatees historically relied on warm
water from natural springs, but these
are becoming scarce. As a result, many
manatees rely on industrial discharges
such as cooling water discharges from
power plants. However, the reliability
of these sources is unpredictable and
loss of even one site (such as for
maintenance or an emergency) can cause
hundreds of manatee deaths. The Florida
manatee population is increasing
slightly, but uncertainty over the
availability of warm-water wintering
sites, coupled with the manatee's
tendency to return to the same winter
sites year after year, means the
species' recovery is still many decades
away.
Whooping crane Listed: 1967 Extensive efforts to breed the crane in
captivity and reintroduce it into the
wild have been relatively successful,
but the species will take a long time to
recover because the population size fell
to a very small number; the species
reproduces slowly; and it continues to
face threats on its migration routes.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
aSpecies with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species
Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species Conservation
Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of threatened and
endangered species under the 1973 act.
These four species were included in our sample primarily because of the
relatively high level of federal and state expenditures on the species as
reported for fiscal year 2003. The two species for which FWS is
responsible were reported as having between 0 and 50 percent of their
recovery achieved in the 2001-2002 recovery report to Congress.
Some Species' Habitats Are Difficult to Protect
Recovery efforts for five of the species we reviewed are far from complete
because FWS is unable to protect the habitat necessary to recover these
species. For example, the recovery plan for the Florida panther calls for
three viable, self-sustaining populations-which must each include at least
240 panthers to maintain genetic diversity. However, as of 2005, there is
currently only one population estimated at 76 panthers; its genetic
diversity is being augmented by a closely related subspecies found in
Texas. The habitat this small population currently relies on is at its
carrying capacity and is declining by about one percent per year because
of housing and citrus development. FWS biologists report that, although it
is biologically feasible to recover the panther, they do not believe it is
likely this will occur because of the lack of public support for expanding
the current population and establishing additional populations-actions
that rely on additional suitable habitat being available to the panther.
The lack of public support stems largely from fears of the animal and
predation on livestock and pets.
The Socorro isopod, a one-fourth-inch long member of the crustacean
family, is another example of FWS being unable to protect the habitat
necessary to recover a species, but for a different reason than that of
the Florida panther. The only wild population of isopods is found in New
Mexico, and lives in the pipes of an abandoned bathhouse that was built to
take advantage of the natural hot spring the species historically relied
on. The bathhouse and the water rights to the spring that feeds the
bathhouse are privately owned. The recovery plan for the isopod calls for
an agreement with the property owner to protect the species-either an
easement, lease, or outright purchase of the property. However, FWS
biologists told us that the property owner has not consented to such an
agreement, although he has taken some actions to protect the species, such
as repairing a fence surrounding the bathhouse that helps protect it from
vandals. However, without the property owner's cooperation, FWS cannot
secure the habitat essential to ensure the survival of the species and
thus delist it. Table 5 summarizes some key details for these five
species.
Table 5: Species for Which Essential Habitat Is Not Protected
Species name Year species Habitat protection needed
was listeda
Ash Meadows sunray (plant) Listed: 1985 The primary threat at the time
of listing was development of
its unique habitat-a desert
wetland in Nevada. This threat
was partially mitigated through
land acquisition, but the area
remains vulnerable to mineral
extraction.
Black-footed ferret Listed: 1967 Ferrets rely on prairie dog
colonies for habitat and on
prairie dogs for food. However,
strong public opposition to
prairie dogs prevents the
establishment of sufficient
prairie dog populations to
support recovery of the ferret.
In addition, disease threatens
the prairie dogs and the ferret.
Florida panther Listed: 1967 Development continues to reduce
the size of already insufficient
habitat for the panther, and
there is public opposition to
establishing additional
populations in other locations.
Papery whitlow-wort-Florida Listed: 1987 The primary threat to the
panhandle subspecies (plant) species is habitat loss through
residential, industrial, and
commercial development. Land
management activities and
habitat protections, including
land acquisition, are needed.
However, funds have not yet been
available to fully implement
recovery actions.
Socorro isopod (crustacean) Listed: 1978 Water rights to the spring
supporting the only wild
population are privately owned.
Source: FWS.
aSpecies with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species
Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species Conservation
Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of threatened and
endangered species under the 1973 act.
The Florida panther and the black-footed ferret were included in our
sample because there was a relatively high level of federal and state
expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003, and each
species had at least one full-time staff member dedicated to its recovery.
The other three species-the Ash Meadows sunray, the papery whitlow-wort,
and the Socorro isopod-were included in our sample because FWS reported
them as having between 76 and 100 percent of their recovery achieved in
the fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery report to Congress; however, as
discussed above, it is unclear when these species will be delisted.
Key Information Is Lacking about the Threats Some Species Face
FWS cannot predict whether or when a successful recovery is possible for
the remaining three species we reviewed because it does not know enough
about the threats facing the species, or how to mitigate those threats.
These three species could spend more than 50 years on the endangered
species list. The Indiana bat is one example. This species has been found
throughout much of the eastern United States. The bats winter in caves or
mines, called hibernacula, that satisfy their highly specific need for
cold (but not freezing) temperatures during hibernation. The fact that
they hibernate in a relatively small number of caves suggests that very
few caves meet their habitat requirements. FWS biologists originally
thought that the only major threat to the bat was anthropomorphic changes
to its hibernacula. For example, gates installed to control human access
to caves have been documented as major causes of Indiana bat declines
because they prevent bat access or do not allow proper air flow; human
disturbances in caves with hibernating bats have also been found to
adversely affect the species. Yet despite actions to protect the
hibernacula and remove these threats, population levels have not
rebounded, suggesting that the species faces additional threats when not
hibernating. The additional threats are not well known because the species
is difficult to study-it is nocturnal, widely dispersed during the summer,
and roosts in trees with exfoliating bark. This latter point is
problematic because climbing these trees (for example, to conduct studies
on the species) could destroy the habitat. Table 6 summarizes some key
details for these three species.
Table 6: Species for Which Key Information Is Lacking
Species name Year species was Key information gap
listeda
Ash Meadows gumplant Listed: 1985 An invasive species may threaten
(plant) the gumplant and FWS biologists do
not know how to remove it from the
gumplant's habitat.
Indiana bat Listed: 1967 Unknown threats to the bat are
suspected during summer months. A
revised recovery plan is being
drafted that will include recovery
actions to address this
information gap.
Spring-loving centaury Listed: 1985 An invasive species may threaten
(plant) the centaury and FWS biologists do
not know how to remove it from the
centaury's habitat.
Source: FWS.
aSpecies with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species
Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species Conservation
Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of threatened and
endangered species under the 1973 act.
We included the Ash Meadows gumplant and the Spring-loving centaury in our
sample because they were reported to have 76 to 100 percent of their
recovery achieved in the fiscal year 2001-2002 recovery report to
Congress. However, FWS biologists believe that a recently identified
threat to these two species may result in the recovery-achieved statistic
for these species being lowered in the next recovery report to Congress.
The third species-the Indiana bat-was included in our sample because of
the relatively high level of federal and state expenditures on the species
as reported for fiscal year 2003.
Recovery Plans Play an Important Role in Recovering Certain Threatened and
Endangered Species
We found that recovery plans have played an important role in the recovery
efforts of all but one of the 31 species we reviewed. More specifically,
for 13 of the species, biologists report that the recovery plan contains
key actions needed to achieve progress in recovering the species. Although
not all of these species are nearing recovery, the services' biologists
report that the success that these species have had can be attributed, in
large part, to implementation of actions in the species' recovery plans.
For an additional 17 species, biologists report that, although recovery
plans have played an important role in the species' progress toward
recovery, events unrelated to the plan have also had a critical impact on
recovery progress. In some cases, historic and legal events outside the
purview of the recovery plan-such as the banning of DDT, which set the
stage for the bald eagle's recovery-have been critical to the species
recovery. For some species, the discovery of new populations has played an
important role in their recovery, although monitoring for additional
populations is often a recovery-plan activity. Finally, one species-the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf-does not have a recovery plan, and may not need
one. FWS biologists report that information about this species is changing
rapidly as new and larger populations are being identified. FWS has
considered delisting this species, but some stakeholders raised concerns
about development threats in the species' habitat. The species' status is
currently undergoing a review, and it may be possible to delist it without
having a recovery plan.8
Implementation of Recovery Plan Actions Has Been the Primary Driver in
Recovering 13 Species
Thirteen of the species we reviewed are recovering, in large part due to
the implementation of actions in the species' recovery plans. Although not
all of these species are nearing recovery, the success that these species
have had is attributed primarily to the recovery actions identified in the
species' recovery plans. For example, the red-cockaded woodpecker, which
is found in 11 states from Florida to Texas to Virginia, is expected to
recover largely as a result of implementation of actions in its recovery
plan. The species nests in old pine trees and, by creating and maintaining
wounds in the tree that exude resin, exploits the ability of these pines
to produce large amounts of resin. The resin creates an effective barrier
against climbing snakes and prevents nest predation. The woodpecker
requires large pine trees because it excavates a cavity within the
heartwood (center) of the tree. The diameter of the heartwood must be
large enough to contain the entire cavity-otherwise the woodpecker could
be entrapped by the resin. The woodpecker requires pines at least 60 to 80
years old because the higher incidence of heartwood decay greatly
facilitates cavity excavation. Excavation can take many years, and
averages from 6 to 13 years depending on the type of tree being excavated.
The species declined significantly because logging eliminated much of the
woodpecker's habitat of old-growth pine. FWS biologists report that,
although the woodpecker was listed in 1970, not enough was known about the
species' biology to develop the recovery actions necessary to bring about
the bird's recovery until the mid 1990s. Three of the most significant
efforts that have helped the woodpecker were in the plan-prescribed burns
have helped develop suitable habitat, artificial nesting cavities have
provided a stop-gap measure until existing pine trees mature, and
translocation of birds to new locations with suitable habitat has expanded
the population. The plan also identified measures to protect existing
woodpecker habitat on private land, for example, through conservation
agreements. Since the development and implementation of the recovery plan,
woodpecker populations have been steadily increasing. Table 7 summarizes
some key details for these 13 species.
Table 7: Species Whose Recovery Plans Have Played a Primary Role in the
Species' Progress toward Recovery
Species name Role of plan in species recovery
Black-footed ferret A captive breeding program outlined in the
recovery plan was essential to creating
self-sustaining populations in the wild.
Colorado pikeminnow Key actions in the recovery plan include
restoring water flows and controlling the
introduction of nonnative fish.
Columbian white-tailed Key actions in the recovery plan include
deer-Douglas County DPSa habitat protection (through land
acquisition, easements, and other means) by
federal, state, and local agencies; and
monitoring conducted by the state to
determine the status of the species.
Florida panther Key actions in the recovery plan include
introducing Texas mountain lions (a closely
related subspecies) to keep the species
from becoming dangerously inbred; collaring
and monitoring to determine population
health and status; and installing highway
underpasses to reduce mortality.
Indiana bat The recovery plan included various steps to
protect hibernacula and reduce disturbances
to hibernating bats.
Papery whitlow-wort-central Land acquisition and restoration activities
Florida subspecies (plant) included in the recovery plan are helping
recover this species.
Papery whitlow-wort-Florida Land acquisition and restoration activities
panhandle subspecies (plant) included in the recovery plan, although
still incomplete, have helped this species.
Razorback sucker Key actions in the recovery plan include
land acquisition to provide floodplain
habitat and controlling the introduction of
nonnative fish species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker The most beneficial actions in the recovery
plan have been prescribed burns to ensure
suitable foraging habitat and prevent
hardwood tree encroachment; relocation of
some woodpeckers to areas with suitable
habitat; and providing artificial nesting
cavities until trees are mature enough to
be used by the species.
Rio Grande silvery minnow Key actions in the recovery plan include
augmenting wild populations of minnows,
restoring habitat, and purchasing water
rights to help ensure adequate water flows.
Southwestern willow flycatcher A large number of stakeholders collaborated
(bird) on the recovery plan. This public support
has been the most effective plan-related
action to date. The plan is only 2 years
old, and public support will be essential
to implement the widespread habitat
restoration and protection that is needed
to recover the species.
Truckee barberry (plant) Taxonomic research called for in the
recovery plan determined that the Truckee
barberry should be reclassified as part of
a more prevalent species.
West Indian manatee (Florida Key actions in the recovery plan include
population) reducing mortality from boat collisions,
fishing gear entanglement, and entrapment
in navigation locks.
Source: FWS. aA DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for
purposes of listing, is treated as a species under the Endangered Species
Act.
Recovery for 17 Species is Driven by Both the Recovery Plan and Other
Factors
For 17 of the species we reviewed, biologists report that, while recovery
plans played important roles, events outside of the plans have also been
critical to the species' recovery efforts. In some cases, historic and
legal events have been critical to a species' recovery. For example, the
whooping crane benefited from protections that occurred before endangered
species legislation was in existence. In the early 1900s, it was
recognized that the crane's population was decreasing. The major cause of
this decline was thought to be hunting and, as wetlands were drained and
turned into farmland, habitat loss. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916
prohibited hunting of the crane (and most other migratory birds in the
United States). The crane also benefited from the creation of two
protected areas-one specifically to protect the crane, the other to
protect another species that shared the crane's habitat. In 1922, Canada
created a national park to protect a small herd of bison and the crane was
later found to summer there. In 1937, the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
in Texas was created to protect cranes that were currently wintering
there. While these actions were critical to protecting the crane and its
habitat, the population remained low and did not exceed 100 until the
winter of 1983-84. Accordingly, the 1980 recovery plan set forth many
additional recovery actions that have greatly helped the species, such as
introducing captively-bred cranes into the wild. Perhaps the best-known of
these recovery actions is the use of ultralight aircraft to teach cranes
migration routes between summer and winter habitats.
Similarly, the Borax Lake chub also benefited from several events not
included in its recovery plan. The chub is a fish, typically less than 2
inches long, found in Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in arid
southeastern Oregon. The lake is fed by several thermal springs that were
vulnerable to geothermal development. The immediate threat was removed
when the energy exploration company speculating in the area abandoned its
plans to pursue development of a hydrogeothermal facility in the Borax
Lake area. These actions were not part of the recovery plan but were
critical to protecting the Borax Lake chub. They were supplemented by
implementation of a key action called for in the recovery plan-purchasing
the privately owned land surrounding the lake.
For other species, the discovery of new populations has played an
important role in their recovery. For example, Johnston's frankenia, a
small perennial shrub found in south Texas and an adjacent area in
northeastern Mexico, was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1984.
At the time of listing, there were only five known populations in
Texas-all on privately-owned lands. However, many private lands had not
been surveyed for the species because of resistance from the landowners. A
key action in the recovery plan was working with landowners to gain access
to their lands to conduct monitoring. Once this was accomplished, the
plant was found to be more prevalent than thought at the time of listing,
and FWS proposed delisting the species in 2003. While the discovery of
previously unknown populations is a fortunate event that cannot be
prescribed by a recovery plan, monitoring and surveying to determine
species' abundance and distribution can be included in a recovery plan.
Table 8 summarizes some key details for these 17 species.
Table 8: Species Whose Recovery Has Been Aided by Both Recovery Plans and
Other Factors
Species name Important recovery actions Events outside of recovery
found in recovery plans plans that have aided
species' recovery
Ash Meadows Securing land and water Creation of a national
gumplant (plant) rights to protect habitat. wildlife refuge to protect
essential habitat.
Ash Meadows sunray Securing land and water Creation of a national
(plant) rights to protect habitat. wildlife refuge to protect
essential habitat.
Bald eagle Habitat protection and Banning of DDT in 1972.
enhancement of nesting
areas, and management
guidelines to limit
disturbances around nests.
Borax Lake chub Land acquisition around Withdrawal of an energy
(fish) Borax Lake, and the Bureau exploration company's plans
of Land Management placing to pursue development of a
special management status hydrogeothermal facility in
on the area around the the Borax Lake area.
lake.
Eggert's sunflower Prescribed fires to Species was more prevalent
(plant) improve habitat; research than thought at the time of
on genetics; and, for listing.
habitat, management plans
and conservation
agreements.
Gray wolf (western Strong enforcement of Protections, due to listing
Great Lakes hunting prohibition, the species, sharply
recovery depredation control and curtailed hunting; state
population) compensation programs, and programs that protected the
public education. wolf also were important.
Johnston's Getting private Species was more prevalent
frankenia (plant) landowners' cooperation to than thought at the time of
survey habitat. listing.
Magazine Mountain U.S. Forest Service The Department of Defense
shagreen (land designating habitat areas withdrew plans to use the
snail) as "special interest" area for exercises, and FWS
areas and conducting provided input to protect
additional monitoring. the species during
development of an
environmental impact
statement for construction
of a facility near the
species' habitat.
Northern right Reducing collisions with World-wide ban on hunting
whale (north ships and entanglement in 1935 saved the species
Atlantic with fishing gear. from extinction.
population)
Socorro isopod Another population of Establishment of a captive
(crustacean) isopods was created in population in 1977 was
1990 that relies on the relied on to repopulate the
same spring as the habitat when the only wild
original population, population became extinct
bringing the total number in 1988.
of isopod populations to
three.
Spring-loving Securing land and water Creation of a national
centaury (plant) rights to protect habitat. wildlife refuge to protect
essential habitat.
Steller sea lion Prohibition on shooting, Also protected by the
(eastern DPS)a and protection of habitat Marine Mammal Protection
and offshore foraging Act.
areas.
Steller sea lion Reduction of competition Also protected by the
(western DPS)a for prey with commercial Marine Mammal Protection
fishing operations. Act.
Uinta Basin Research to determine Species was more prevalent
hookless cactus species morphology. than thought at the time of
listing.
Uncompahgre Closures of key areas to The U.S. Forest Service
fritillary prevent illegal established a "no ground
butterfly collection, monitoring to disturbing" provision for
identify additional the Rio Grande National
colonies, and management Forest that prevents
of sheep grazing. animals such as sheep from
trampling potential
butterfly habitat.
Virginia round-leaf Habitat alteration to U.S. Forest Service fenced
birch (tree) provide more sunlight to the two mature trees that
seedlings in the wild and occurred on National Forest
distribution of land and conducted soil
greenhouse-grown seedlings disturbance activities to
to the public to stop encourage seed germination.
collection from wild
populations.
Whooping crane Captive breeding and Protection of key habitat
reintroduction programs. areas through the creation,
in 1922, of a national park
in Canada and the creation,
in 1937, of a national
wildlife refuge in Texas.
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
aA DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes of
listing, is treated as a species under the Endangered Species Act.
Agency Comments
We provided Interior and Commerce with a draft of this report for review
and comment. Interior generally agreed with the information presented in
this report; its letter is presented in appendix III. Additionally,
Interior provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the
report, as appropriate. Commerce declined to provide a general assessment
of the draft because the report does not contain recommendations. Commerce
did, however, provide technical comments that we have incorporated into
the report, as appropriate.
We performed our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A
description of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
As discussed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and interested
congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at h ttp://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or n [email protected].
Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to
this report were Charles T. Egan, Trish McClure, Alison O'Neill, Rebecca
Shea, Maria Vargas, and Mary Welch.
Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources and Environment
List of congressional requesters
The Honorable James M. Inhofe Chairman The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Environment and Public Works United
States Senate
The Honorable Lincoln Chafee Chairman Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Water Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate
The Honorable Richard W. Pombo Chairman The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Resources House of Representatives
The Honorable Michael D. Crapo United States Senate
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg United States Senate
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski United States Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate
The Honorable Craig Thomas United States Senate
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
In response to a request from 10 members of Congress, we (1) identified
factors affecting the length of time to recover 31 selected species listed
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and (2)
described the role that recovery plans have played in recovering these
species. As agreed with our requesters, we selected a nonprobability
sample of species to review. Results from nonprobability samples cannot be
used to make inferences about a population because some elements in the
studied population have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected.
However, our in-depth review of these selected species provides valuable,
case-level insights into their progress toward recovery and the role that
recovery plans have played in that progress.
We used a multi-step process to select the nonprobability sample of
species for review. First, we used three criteria to identify species that
were nearing recovery or had significant attention devoted to them, and
thus would be expected to be making progress towards recovery. These three
criteria were: (1) species that are nearing recovery as reported by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), (2) species with relatively high
federal and state expenditures, and (3) species with at least one
full-time staff member dedicated to recovery. To identify species nearing
recovery, we used FWS's fiscal year 2001-2002 biennial report to Congress
on the status of species recovery.1 This was the most recent report
available at the time we selected our sample. In this report, FWS provides
the percent of recovery objectives achieved for each species-both for
those which it has primary responsibility, and for those which it shares
responsibility with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We
considered species to be nearing recovery if they were reported to have
achieved 76 to 100 percent of their recovery objectives. NMFS does not
report this measure. To identify species with relatively high federal and
state expenditures, we used the fiscal year 2003 annual report to Congress
of federal and state expenditures.2 This was the most recent report
available at the time we selected our species. It provides expenditure
data on all listed species, regardless of which service has primary
responsibility. We excluded salmon, steelhead, and the desert tortoise
from this sample, even though they had relatively high expenditures,
because we have issued
comprehensive reports on these species.3 We relied on FWS officials to
identify species that had at least one full-time staff member devoted to
recovery efforts. NMFS officials told us that their staff work in recovery
teams, and that having a full-time staff member dedicated to recovery
efforts would not be a good measure of the resources the agency was
devoting to recovery of the species. We identified 40 species that met
these three criteria.
Next, because of time and resource constraints, we took several steps to
reduce the 40 species to a more manageable number. We prioritized species
for review by generally selecting all of the species that satisfied at
least two of the three criteria, and species that were nearing recovery
and had relatively low federal and state expenditures (in order to
understand how species can achieve recovery with relatively low
expenditures). This process yielded 20 species for review. As agreed with
your offices, we reviewed all 20 of these species and as many of the
remaining 20 species as time and resources permitted. To prioritize this
second group of 20 species, we excluded certain species from review based
on a variety of factors. For example, we chose to exclude species that
were similar, or had similar habitats, to other species that were already
included for review. For instance, we excluded some populations of the
gray wolf from our sample because we had included the western Great Lakes
population of the gray wolf in our first group of 20 species for review.
We also excluded the Louisiana black bear because of the additional
demands that Hurricane Katrina placed on local FWS staff. This process
reduced the second group of species for review down to nine.
While our selection process yielded 29 species for review, we ultimately
reported on 31 species because 2 of the species we selected-the Papery
whitlow-wort and the Steller sea lion-consist of subspecies or distinct
population segments (DPS) , and we included these in our review.4 FWS has
primary responsibility for all the species we reviewed except for
three-the northern right whale and the eastern and western DPSs of the
Steller sea lion-for which NMFS has primary responsibility.
To identify factors affecting the length of time to recover the 31
selected species and describe the role that recovery plans have played in
recovering these species, we reviewed each species' recovery plan and
Federal Register documents associated with each species' listing and
delisting actions, as appropriate. We also interviewed the services'
officials at headquarters, and the services' biologists designated as the
primary contact for each species' recovery effort, and obtained additional
documentation, as necessary.
We performed our work between September 2005 and August 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Table 9 lists the species included in our nonprobability sample and the
criteria used to select them.
Table 9: Selection Criteria for Species Included in Our Nonprobability
Sample
Species name Federal and state Percentage Of At least one
expenditures, FY recovery full-time staff
2003 objectives member dedicated
achieved, FY to recovery
2001-2002 efforts
Mammals
Black-footed ferret $1,791,796 0-25 percent Yes
Columbian Not Availablea 76-100 percent No
white-tailed deer
(Douglas County
population)
Florida panther 6,301,276 0-25 percent Yes
Gray wolf (western 403,108 76-100 percent Yes
Great Lakes
population)
Indiana bat 5,218,103 26-50 percent No
Northern right 11,802,149 Not Applicableb Not Applicablec
whale (north
Atlantic
population)
Steller sea lion 5,296,600 Not Applicableb Not Applicablec
(eastern DPS)
Steller sea lion 49,514,210 Not Applicableb Not Applicablec
(western DPS)
West Indian manatee 9,798,514 26-50 percent No
(Florida
population)
Birds
Bald eagle 7,831,531 76-100 percent No
(northern states
recovery area)
Red-cockaded 11,069,069 0-25 percent Yes
woodpecker
Southwestern willow 9,909,284 0-25 percent Yes
flycatcher
Whooping crane 3,299,156 26-50 percent Yes
Fishes
Borax Lake chub 19,600 76-100 percent No
Colorado pikeminnow 6,872,158 51-75 percent No
Razorback sucker 7,127,470 0-25 percent No
Rio Grande silvery 11,300,700 0-25 percent Yes
minnow
Snails
Magazine Mountain 0 76-100 percent No
shagreen
Insects
Uncompahgre 40,343 76-100 percent No
fritillary
butterfly
Crustaceans
Socorro isopod 5,500 76-100 percent No
Plants
Ash Meadows 0 76-100 percent No
gumplant
Ash Meadows sunray 300 76-100 percent No
(Ash Meadows) 0 76-100 percent No
Spring-loving
centaury
Dwarf-flowered 4,520 76-100 percent No
heartleaf
Eggert's sunflower 178,520 76-100 percent No
Johnston's 51,200 76-100 percent No
frankenia
Papery whitlow-wort 200 76-100 percent No
(central Florida
subspecies)
Papery whitlow-wort Expenditures 76-100 percent No
(Florida panhandle included under
subspecies) Papery whitlow-wort
(central Florida
subspecies)
Truckee barberry 30,225 76-100 percent No
Uinta Basin 30,747 76-100 percent No
hookless cactus
Virginia round-leaf 1,300 76-100 percent No
birch
Sources: FWS and NMFS.
aThe Douglas County population of the Columbian white-tailed deer was not
included in the federal and state endangered and threatened species
expenditures report for fiscal year 2003. The species was delisted in July
2003.
bNMFS does not report percent of recovery objectives achieved.
cNMFS officials told us that staff work in recovery teams and that having
a full-time staff member dedicated to recovery efforts would not be a good
measure of the resources the agency was devoting to the species recovery.
Appendix II
Information on 31 Select Species
This appendix provides information on each of the 31 species we reviewed
for this report, including species characteristics, threats to the
species' survival, and costs and partnerships for implementing recovery
actions. The species' profiles are organized by taxonomic group as
follows: mammals, birds, fishes, snails, insects, crustaceans, and plants.
The information provided is based primarily on species' recovery plans,
Federal Register notices associated with the species, and information
provided by the biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) who are responsible for
recovering the species we reviewed. We have attempted to provide estimates
of the costs to date to recover each species, however, there are inherent
limitations to expenditure data, and species-specific information is not
always available because recovery actions may benefit more than one
species (e.g., through habitat restoration). Additionally, in some cases,
federal and state agencies track expenditures by activity rather than by
species. Complete expenditure data on a species' recovery can also be
difficult to obtain, because many entities, in addition to FWS and NMFS,
may implement recovery actions, but are not required to report their
expenditures. These entities include timber companies and commercial
fishing operations, nongovernmental organizations such as The Nature
Conservancy, and universities and independent researchers.
Several of the profiles discuss Section 6 funds and Section 7
consultations-these refer to sections in the Endangered Species Act.
Section 6 authorizes grants to states that maintain programs to conserve
listed species. Section 7 requires that federal agencies, in consultation
with FWS or NMFS, insure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Following the consultation, FWS or NMFS must issue a biological
opinion stating how the action will affect the species or its critical
habitat. If jeopardy or adverse modification is found, the opinion
identifies the steps (called "reasonable and prudent alternatives") needed
to avoid such harm. These consultations may result in an agency modifying
its activities.
Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species
Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species Conservation
Act of 1969, and "grandfathered" onto the list of threatened and
endangered species under the 1973 act.
Mammals
Black-Footed Ferret
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) was listed as endangered in
1967, when only a small population remained in South Dakota. By the early
1970s, the species was thought to be extinct in the wild. However, a small
population of black-footed ferrets was discovered in Wyoming in 1981.
Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced into Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Chihuahua, Mexico. Black-footed
ferrets are mostly nocturnal, solitary carnivores that feed on prairie
dogs and live in prairie dog burrows. As such, black-footed ferret
populations closely correspond to prairie dog populations.
Threats
The decline of the black-footed ferret was an unintended consequence of
concerted public and private efforts to eliminate prairie dogs. Prairie
dog populations were dramatically reduced or locally eliminated by
large-scale conversion of native grasslands into crop lands, and decades
of widespread poisoning designed to reduce prairie dog competition with
cattle grazing. In more recent years, sylvatic plague, a disease spread
primarily by fleas that is devastating to both prairie dog and ferret
populations, has become a serious threat to ferret recovery.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the black-footed ferret in June 1978,
revised it in August 1988, and is now revising it again. The plan seeks to
ensure the species' survival by maintaining a captive population and
increasing free-ranging populations to the widest possible distribution
across the ferrets' historical range. FWS officials reported that the
captive breeding program is the most important and expensive recovery
activity for the ferret. FWS started with 18 captured black-footed ferrets
in 1987. Since then, the ferrets have produced more than 5,000
offspring-over 2,000 of which have been released into the wild.
FWS reports that, although the number of black-footed ferrets has
increased substantially, recovery of the species remains a challenge.
While the captive breeding program has worked well, reintroduction efforts
have had mixed success. Two populations in South Dakota and one in Wyoming
are thought to be self-sustaining, and substantial progress is being made
at two other sites. However, drought and plague have affected population
stability at other recovery areas. Specifically, a drought in South Dakota
last year caused prairie dog populations in a section of the Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands, where the black-footed ferret had been successfully
reintroduced, to disperse onto adjacent private lands. Thousands of acres
of public and private lands were subsequently baited with poison by
private landowners to eliminate the prairie dogs. Additionally, FWS and
several partners are currently pursuing a plague vaccine for the ferret
that appears promising.
According to FWS officials, the technology and expertise to fully recover
the ferret exists; they estimate that they could delist the species by
2025. However, the officials note that sufficient commitment from federal
agencies, states, and private landowners to restore and protect sufficient
habitat for wild populations does not exist and, as a result, the ferret
faces an uncertain future.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials were not able to provide expenditure data for black-footed
ferret recovery efforts, but estimated that the many partners involved in
the species' recovery spend more than $2 million annually. More than 50
percent of recovery expenditures is for captive breeding; 35 to 45 percent
is for reintroduction, monitoring, trapping for relocation, and habitat
assessment. A very small fraction of expenditures is for habitat
conservation. Some 27 state and federal agencies, tribes, and conservation
organizations are official participants on FWS's black-footed ferret
recovery implementation team.
Columbian White-Tailed Deer (Douglas County Population)
The Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) was
listed as endangered in 1967. At that time, only a small population was
known to survive along the lower Columbia River and on some islands off
the coast of Washington; however, an additional population was discovered
in 1978 in Douglas County, Oregon. The lower Columbia River and the
Douglas County populations were treated separately for recovery purposes
because of differences in location, habitat, threats, and land use. The
Douglas County population was classified as a distinct population segment
(DPS) and delisted in 2003.1
Threats
An FWS official reports that the primary threats to the Columbian
white-tailed deer were habitat loss and hunting (both legal and illegal).
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Columbian white-tailed deer in 1976
and revised it in 1983 after the 1978 discovery of the Douglas County
population. An FWS official reports that the most effective recovery
actions for the species were in the plan and were: (1) land acquisitions
by state and local governments, FWS, and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to secure habitat; (2) a Douglas County ordinance that protects, in
perpetuity, riparian areas from development; and (3) a partnership with
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife has researched, monitored, and maintained location and health
data for the species for many years, and modified its monitoring methods
at FWS's request to obtain the data needed to delist the Douglas County
population.
Costs and Partnerships
An FWS official reports that the agency does not have comprehensive
recovery expenditure data for the Columbian white-tailed deer, but notes
that recovery was done on a "shoestring budget" because, once FWS secured
suitable habitat, the population rebounded without extensive agency
intervention. FWS estimates it took about 20 percent of one staff member's
annual salary to conduct recovery activities and delist the Douglas County
population. Between 1995 and 1998, FWS also provided $177,000 in funding
through a cooperative agreement with the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife for monitoring and habitat research. Douglas County also incurred
expenses to protect habitat and some private landowners contributed funds
to recovery efforts. The FWS official attributes the Columbian
white-tailed deer's recovery to "strong partnerships and a cooperative
spirit" with other governmental entities.
Florida Panther
The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), a subspecies of mountain lion,
was listed as endangered in 1967. The Florida panther is six to seven feet
long with short, dark rust-colored fur. It originally ranged from eastern
Texas to South Carolina-through Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Tennessee-but is now restricted to
less than 5 percent of its historic range.
Threats
The Florida panther faces several threats, including habitat loss, low
genetic viability, and disease. The habitat that supports the only wild
population is already at its carrying capacity and is shrinking by about 1
percent annually. Habitat loss is due to intensified urbanization,
residential development, conversion to agriculture, water management, and
mining and mineral exploitation. Because there are so few wild panthers in
Florida, the species has suffered a loss of genetic variability-which
often causes diminished health, such as heart and reproductive defects.
The panther is also susceptible to diseases such as panleukopenia
(decreased white blood cells), feline calicivirus, and pseudorabies. Any
or all of these may increase kitten mortality and seriously reduce adult
panther vitality. In 2003 and 2004, 5 of the 87 known wild Florida
panthers were lost to feline leukemia. FWS officials report that a lack of
public support, based on fear of the animal and its predation on livestock
and pets, is an obstacle to reintroducing the Florida panther into other
sites in its historic range and, ultimately, recovering the species.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Florida panther in 1981 and revised
it in 1987, 1995, and 2006. According to FWS officials, the most important
recovery actions for the species are found in the recovery plan. These
include habitat protection, radio collaring and monitoring to determine
the health and status of the population, constructing highway underpasses
to reduce vehicle strikes, and introducing female panthers from Texas
(which belong to a related subspecies) to the Florida population to
restore genetic health. FWS officials said that one new female Texas
panther needs to be introduced into the Florida population each generation
to maintain sufficient genetic diversity. FWS officials report that the
recovery plan for the Florida panther has been critical in keeping it from
becoming extinct, but note that the plan focuses on avoiding extinction
rather than promoting recovery.
FWS officials report that it is unlikely that the panther will ever be
recovered and delisted. Officials say that the Florida panther will never
have a genetically sustainable population in south Florida because
available habitat is not large enough to support a self-sustaining
population, which would require at least 240 panthers, particularly given
the rapid development that this area experiences. FWS has identified areas
in Arkansas, Alabama, and northern Florida/southern Georgia where enough
habitat exists to sustain populations of that size. However,
reintroduction of panthers into these areas is unlikely to occur because
of a lack of public support.
Costs and Partnerships
Most recovery tasks for the panther are implemented by the Florida Panther
Interagency Committee, which was organized in 1986. This committee
consists of several agencies including FWS, the National Park Service, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. FWS officials were unable to
provide recovery expenditure data on panther recovery, but estimate that
Florida state agencies bear about 90 percent of the costs, while the
National Park Service and FWS account for about 7 percent and 3 percent,
respectively. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, with
help from the National Park Service, has played a major role in genetics,
radio collaring, and monitoring activities.
Gray Wolf (Western Great Lakes Recovery Population)
The gray wolf was listed as endangered in 1967. Gray wolves weigh about 50
to 100 pounds and are usually a mixed gray color. The gray wolf has had a
complex relationship with the law. When the act first took effect in 1973,
two populations of gray wolves were "grandfathered" onto the list of
threatened and endangered species-one in Minnesota and Michigan, and one
in the northern Rocky Mountains. In 1976, two more populations of gray
wolves that ranged in the southwestern United States were added to the
list. To update the taxonomy of the species based on new information and
address other issues, FWS issued a new listing in 1978 that classified the
gray wolf as a single species that was endangered throughout the lower 48
states, except for a population in Minnesota that was listed as
threatened. Even though the gray wolf was listed as a single species, FWS
still recognized separate populations for managing recovery efforts. (FWS
officials later determined that wolves that historically occurred in 16
southeastern states were actually a separate species-the red wolf.) For
this report, we evaluated recovery actions for the western Great Lakes
population; other populations are the western (which includes the Rocky
Mountains) and the southwestern populations.
The historic range of the western Great Lakes population (Canis lupus
lycaon) once included most of the eastern United States and southeastern
Canada, but its present U.S. range only includes parts of Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. FWS officials believe that this population is
ready to be delisted. However, its delisting is constrained because it is
not listed as a separate entity-it is part of the larger gray wolf
listing. To clarify the current status of the various populations of gray
wolves and to delist the western Great Lakes population, FWS proposed a
rule in 2000 to (1) reclassify the gray wolf as "not listed" in 16
southeastern states that are historic red wolf ranges; (2) establish a DPS
for the western Great Lakes population to be listed as threatened; (3)
establish a DPS for the western population to be listed as threatened; and
(4) establish a DPS for the southwestern population to be listed as
endangered. While the rule was finalized in 2003, FWS was sued for this
action. In early 2005, courts ruled that FWS's action was arbitrary and
capricious with regard to how they grouped states into these four separate
classifications. Therefore, the wolf listing reverted to the prior listing
action from 1978; this listing identifies the gray wolf as endangered in
47 of the lower 48 states, and threatened in Minnesota. To address the
court's concern with the prior delisting proposal, FWS is addressing
redesignation of the gray wolf on a population-by-population basis. In
February 2006, FWS issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to
establish a Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and delist it at the same time.
Similarly, in March 2006, FWS officials proposed a rule to create a
western Great Lakes DPS and delist it at the same time.
Threats
FWS officials report that ranchers who kill the wolf to protect livestock
are the primary threat to the western Great Lakes population. In addition,
the public's fear of wolves results in opposition, which is a complicating
factor for recovery of the species.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the western Great Lakes population of the
gray wolf in 1978 and revised it in 1992. Officials reported that the
comprehensiveness of this plan and the numerous partners' efforts made
recovery of the western Great Lakes population possible. Actions in the
recovery plan that were most important for recovering this population were
the creation of programs to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to
wolves, and the removal of wolves from areas where they prey on livestock.
The plan also included public education on wolf biology, behavior, and
ecology that has been important for improving the public's understanding
of the species.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials report that the large number of entities involved in
recovery efforts for the gray wolf makes it impossible to estimate total
expenditures. FWS expenditures in fiscal year 2004 included almost
$645,000-$140,000 for law enforcement; $60,000 for Section 7
consultations, mostly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture; $55,000 for
monitoring and research on FWS refuges; and about $390,000 for the
delisting process. The agriculture and natural resources departments in
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin dedicate resources to help FWS enforce
laws that protect the gray wolf. Additionally, these states, along with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Service and the
nongovernmental organization Defenders of Wildlife, fund and manage the
livestock compensation programs. Public education is conducted by a
variety of additional nongovernmental organizations, such as the
International Wolf Center and the Timber Wolf Alliance. Indian tribes also
protect the gray wolf on their land.
Indiana Bat
The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) was listed as endangered in March 1967.
The Indiana bat is a migratory species that hibernates in the winter and
disperses throughout much of the eastern United States in the summer.
Based on censuses taken every other year in caves where the bats hibernate
during the winter (called hibernacula), researchers estimate that the
Indiana bat population has declined by about 60 percent since the
1960s-falling to about 353,000 in the mid 1990s.
Threats
FWS officials report that they initially believed that winter habitat loss
was the primary threat to the Indiana bat. The bats require certain
temperatures in caves during their winter hibernation-they will freeze if
the temperature is too low and burn up their fat reserves before spring if
the temperature is too high. Large numbers of Indiana bats hibernate in a
very small number of large, complex caves because such caves provide a
more stable temperature than smaller caves. However, these caves are often
easily accessible to humans and have features that make them attractive
for recreational and commercial purposes. As a result, doors and walls
were often added to cave openings, changing the temperature of the caves
to the point that they no longer provide suitable habitat. In addition,
researchers now believe that bat populations are affected by a number of
threats when they are not hibernating, the most significant of which are
not yet known.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the Indiana bat in 1983, and
drafted a revision in March 1999. The 1999 revision, however, was not
approved because of differences of opinion among recovery team members,
and because FWS needed to address the significant public comments
received. A new draft revision is expected in 2006. FWS officials report
that an important recovery action that was identified in the 1983 recovery
plan was to protect hibernacula. Actions have been implemented to do this,
including removing doors and walls in order to restore cave temperatures
to normal, gating hibernacula to control human access, and allowing cave
tours only during the summer when bats are not present. However, FWS
officials report that these efforts have not always resulted in the
expected increases in hibernating populations, suggesting that additional,
unknown threats affect the Indiana bat. Therefore, the draft revision of
the recovery plan is focusing heavily on research. FWS officials report
that they cannot estimate the Indiana bat's potential for delisting
because they lack sufficient information about key aspects of the species'
life cycle and the threats it faces. It appears that the population is
increasing; however, it remains far below historic levels.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials could not provide an estimate of recovery expenditures for
the Indiana bat because they are not centrally collected. Partners include
states, which have used Section 6 funds for land acquisition, and the U.S.
Forest Service (Forest Service) and Department of Defense, which monitor
summer bat colonies on their lands.
Northern Right Whale
The northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) was listed as endangered in
1970. Adult right whales are generally between 45 and 55 feet in length
and can weigh up to 70 tons. Historically, there were two populations of
this whale. An eastern North Atlantic population was historically found
along the northwestern coast of Africa and in Northern European waters,
but is generally considered to be extinct. A western North Atlantic
population is found along the eastern United States coast and includes
about 300 whales.
Threats
The primary threats to the survival of the northern right whale are its
low population numbers, fishing gear entanglement, and collisions with
ships. In the past, the greatest threat was commercial whaling, which was
banned internationally in 1935.
Role of Recovery Plan
NMFS approved a recovery plan for the northern right whale in 1991, and
revised it in 2005. Several important recovery actions included in the
recovery plan have been implemented for the species. In particular,
extensive effort is expended implementing surveillance and alert systems.
Specifically, aircraft surveys identify locations of right whales; these
locations are then shared with ship captains. On a number of occasions,
aircraft observers were able to contact and divert ships on direct courses
for right whales. In addition, NMFS and the U. S. Coast Guard jointly
developed a mandatory ship reporting system that became operational in
1999 for use in right whale habitat to help avoid ship strikes. Ships
entering right whale habitat are required to report their location, speed,
and direction; an automatic message replies with relevant whale location
information. U. S.Navy vessels also report information on ship strikes and
provide advisories to ship captains.
Other important actions that have been implemented from the recovery plan
include closing fishing areas during certain times, and buy-back programs
for commercial fishing operations in which old fishing gear is purchased
so it can be replaced with specially designed new gear that is less
hazardous to whales. NMFS is also proposing prohibiting float rope-used by
fisherman between traps and fishing gear-which creates large loops of line
that can cause serious injury and mortality to right whales. Although
significant steps have been taken to reduce fishing gear entanglements and
ship strikes, NMFS officials acknowledge that additional efforts are
needed. NMFS officials report that the northern right whale has a high
potential for recovery because the threats to the species are known and
manageable. However, they report that it will take more than 50 years to
meet recovery goals because right whales reproduce infrequently.
Costs and Partnerships
NMFS officials report that it would be difficult to provide comprehensive
cost estimates because significant funding for right whale recovery is
provided by other entities. Key partners in right whale recovery include
the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, other government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and the commercial fishing industry.
Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western DPSs)
The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) was listed as threatened in
1990. In the 1950s, an estimated 240,000 to 300,000 Steller sea lions
ranged across the Pacific rim from southern California, Canada, and
Alaska, into Russia and northern Japan. By 1990, the species had declined
by about 80 percent. In 1997, NMFS reclassified the Steller sea lion as
two DPSs based on new genetic information-the eastern DPS extends east
from Cape Suckling, Alaska, to British Columbia, and south to California;
the western DPS extends from Japan around the Pacific Rim to Cape
Suckling. The eastern DPS was listed as threatened, while the western DPS
was listed as endangered.
Threats
NMFS reports that the primary threat to the Steller sea lion, at the time
it was listed, was the killing of sea lions to protect fishing gear and
reduce their population size. Additional threats for the western DPS
include predation by killer whales, environmental change, subsistence
harvests, and disease. These threats also affect the eastern DPS, but do
not appear to be limiting its recovery.
Role of Recovery Plan
NMFS approved a recovery plan for the Steller sea lion in 1992, and a
draft revision is currently being considered. Important actions in the
1992 recovery plan were to collect background information on the biology
of Steller sea lions, develop and implement new research methods to better
understand the causes of decline, and assess the efficacy of fishery
conservation measures. In accordance with the recovery plan, NMFS and its
partners have monitored Steller sea lion population trends, gained
valuable information on general sea lion ecology, evaluated threats to
recovery, and determined which populations are at risk. Key conservation
measures in the recovery plan that have been implemented include reducing
direct and incidental harm and killing by commercial fishing operations,
eliminating disturbances at breeding sites, and reducing competition with
commercial fisheries for sea lion prey.
NMFS officials report that the eastern DPS has been doing well for quite
some time and hope to delist it by 2010. The western DPS has been
increasing by about 3 percent annually since 2000, but NMFS reports that
this increase may not represent a statistically significant trend. The
increases correlate with recovery actions taken in the late 1990s and
2000s to reduce direct harm and killing of sea lions by commercial
fisheries and competition between fisheries and Steller sea lions;
however, NMFS cannot definitively determine a causal link. If the western
DPS continues to increase, NMFS officials said that they may consider
downlisting it within the next decade and delisting it around 2030.
Costs and Partnerships
Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS received over $167 million in appropriations
for Steller sea lion recovery efforts, with most of that provided in
recent years. Funding from 1992 through 2000 totaled just $18.5 million,
compared to about $149 million between 2001 and 2005-a substantial
increase that resulted from concerns about the potential impact of
commercial fisheries on the Steller sea lion's decline. The most
significant expenditures for the sea lion are on research. Approximately
$40 million per year in 2001 and 2002 was dedicated to research; current
funding for research is about $20 million per year.
Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS's internal funding accounted for about
one-third of the overall expenditures on sea lion recovery (about $52
million); the remainder of the $167 million was distributed in the form of
grants to state government, fishery management councils, and the public.
NMFS activities include conducting Section 7 consultations, supporting the
recovery team, and implementing conservation actions and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. NMFS officials report that partners have been critical to
sea lion recovery efforts and include state governments, fishery
management councils, and the public.
West Indian Manatee (Florida Population)
The Florida subspecies (Trichechus manatus latirostris) of the West Indian
manatee was listed in 1967.2 The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic
mammal. Adults average about 10 feet long and weigh about 1,000 pounds.
Florida manatees can be found throughout the southeastern United States,
with Florida and Georgia at the core of its range. The Florida population
consists of four subpopulations, divided regionally throughout coastal and
riverine waters: the Atlantic, St. Johns River, northwest, and southwest.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's 2001 survey of the
Florida population reported a minimum of 1,400 to 1,500 manatees in the
Atlantic subpopulation; 1,400 in the southwest subpopulation; 175 in the
upper St. Johns River subpopulation; and 400 in the northwest
subpopulation.
Threats
FWS officials report that the primary threats to the manatee are
collisions with watercraft, entrapment in navigation locks, entanglement
in fishing gear, and a lack of warm-water wintering sites.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the manatee in 1980 and updated it in
1989, 1996, and 2001. FWS officials report that decreasing the number of
manatee deaths from watercraft collisions, entrapment in navigation locks,
and entanglement in fishing gear are the most important efforts
implemented as part of the recovery plan. Watercraft collisions, and
related manatee deaths and injuries, have been the focus of FWS's and its
partner's recovery activities for many years. At least 25 percent of
manatee mortalities are caused by collisions with watercraft, and many
manatees bear scars from these encounters. Federal and state managers have
sought to reduce the number of such deaths and injuries through law
enforcement, outreach, education, and the designation of manatee
protection areas and no-wake zones. This process is ongoing, and efforts
continue to reduce the number of such events.
To reduce entrapment in navigation locks, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(the Corps) and state water management agencies have retrofitted water
control structures and navigation locks with pressure sensors or acoustic
arrays-devices that use acoustic signals to detect the presence of
manatees-to allow trapped manatees to escape. In addition, Florida has
banned fishing nets and is considering seasonal closures of fishing areas,
which may help to reduce manatee mortality from entanglement in fishing
gear.
FWS officials report that they do not anticipate delisting the manatee in
the near future, although they are reviewing the species to determine if
it should be downlisted from endangered to threatened. The availability of
warm-water wintering sites remains a major challenge to manatee recovery.
Historically, the manatee relied on warm water from natural springs; these
springs are diminishing, however. Many warm-water sites currently used by
manatees are created artificially through discharges from power plants and
other industries. Approximately 585 manatees have been counted at a single
warm-water discharge site. If one of these plants closes and the water
cools, even temporarily, manatee mortalities could number in the hundreds.
Because manatees return to the same warm-water wintering sites year after
year, preserving these sites is critical to successful recovery efforts-as
is trying to attract manatees to more secure sites. However, given their
fidelity to a single wintering site, it will take a long time to attract
sufficient numbers of manatees to more secure wintering sites.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials report that estimating the cost of recovery for the manatee
is challenging because of the large number of public and private
organizations involved, but note that the costs are very high. For
example, FWS officials state that, from fiscal years 1994 through 2005,
the Corps spent over $7 million retrofitting gates on water control
structures with pressure sensors and equipping navigation locks with
acoustic arrays. It costs approximately $100,000 to retrofit each gate
with the pressure sensors, and $1,000,000 to install acoustic arrays on
navigation locks. State agencies have also contributed funds for these
activities, but FWS officials did not have that cost information.
Additional partners in manatee recovery include several zoos and
aquaria-located in California, Florida, Ohio, and Puerto Rico-that conduct
manatee rescue rehabilitation and release programs. In these programs, a
manatee is brought into captivity when injured or sick and, upon
rehabilitation, released back into the wild. FWS officials report that
these programs also cost millions of dollars.
Birds
Bald Eagle (Northern States Recovery Area)
The bald eagle is a large bird of prey found only in North America. Eagles
rely primarily on fish for their diet, and their habitat is almost
exclusively near lakes, rivers, and sea coasts. Most bald eagles live for
about 30 years, making it a relatively long-lived species. A bald eagle
subspecies found in the southern United States was listed as endangered in
1967. However, in 1978, due to a lack of distinguishing physical
characteristics, FWS reclassified all bald eagles in the United States as
one species (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). FWS listed the species as
endangered throughout the lower 48 states, except in Michigan, Minnesota,
Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin, where it was classified as threatened.
To manage the recovery program for the bald eagle, FWS established five
areas with individual recovery plans. We reviewed the northern states
recovery area, which is the largest of these recovery areas; it covers 24
states.
According to FWS officials, a 1963 survey of bald eagles in the lower 48
states found only 417 nesting pairs. That number had grown to 3,399 pairs
in 1991; of these, 1,188 pairs were found in the FWS region that leads the
efforts for the northern states recovery area. In 1995, the bald eagle was
downlisted from endangered to threatened throughout the lower 48 states.
FWS proposed delisting the bald eagle in 1999 due to recovery, but met
resistance because of concerns over the changes in protections afforded
the species-even though it is also protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. FWS reinitiated the
process to delist the bald eagle in February 2006. To address concerns
with the prior delisting proposal, FWS also issued draft management
guidelines for bald eagles and a proposed rule for a regulatory definition
for "disturb" under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Threats
Originally, the primary threats to the bald eagle were hunting, trapping,
and pesticides-especially dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), which
was widely used in the late 1940s to control insects that damaged
agriculture and carried diseases such as malaria. FWS officials report
that current threats to the bald eagle include habitat loss due to
development and other human activities, especially along the coast and
near inland rivers and waterways.
Role of Recovery Plan
Historic threats to the bald eagle have long been mitigated. The Bald
Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (amended as the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act in 1962) made hunting and trapping the bald eagle unlawful;
the eagle was afforded additional protection under the Endangered Species
Act. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in the
United States in 1972 because of the harm it caused to wildlife. These
actions occurred long before there was a recovery plan for the species.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the northern states population of bald
eagles in 1983. The plan covers 24 states where bald eagles were listed as
either threatened or endangered. Key activities in the plan that have been
implemented include protecting habitat, managing nesting areas, and
educating the public to avoid disturbing habitats. FWS officials report
that education and law enforcement programs called for by the recovery
plan have resulted in habitat restoration and the reduction of illegal
hunting and trapping. Additionally, they report that the extensive
knowledge they obtained through years of research have contributed to the
recovery process. Further, the bald eagles' prominence as a national
symbol, coupled with education and public support, has also been critical
in the recovery of this species. Even though habitat loss continues to
escalate as the U.S. population increases, bald eagle populations continue
to grow.
Costs and Partnerships
While FWS has led efforts to implement the recovery plan for the bald
eagle, there are a wide variety of government partners in the northern
recovery area, including state forestry departments, the Forest Service,
the National Park Service, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), and BLM. Nongovernmental partners include the National
Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, the American Eagle Foundation,
forest product companies, and various bird watching societies.
Additionally, FWS officials report that grassroots volunteer efforts and
financial contributions from private parties played an important role in
the bald eagle's recovery. According to FWS officials, annual expenditures
for the recovery and protection of the bald eagle, by public and private
agencies nationwide, have exceeded $1 million each year for the past
decade.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was listed as endangered
in 1970. It is a black and white bird about 8 inches long. On occasion,
the male displays red feathers on its head. The woodpecker builds nest
cavities in old-growth pine trees (70-120 years old) with wood that is
both soft enough for the woodpecker to make a nest cavity and large enough
for the cavity to be free of pine resin. The bird's range includes
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
Threats
An FWS official reports that the primary threats to the red-cockaded
woodpecker are habitat fragmentation resulting from development, and the
limited availability of old growth pine trees due to past timber harvests.
Fire suppression activities also severely harm the species' habitat
because they result in hardwood tree encroachment in pine forests, which
in turn causes woodpeckers to abandon their nesting cavities in these
areas.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker in 1979, and
revised it in 1985 and 2003. FWS reports that the most effective recovery
actions are in the species' recovery plan, and include (1) the scheduling
of prescribed burns every 2 to 3 years to ensure suitable foraging habitat
and prevent hardwood tree encroachment, (2) the building of artificial
cavities in suitable trees, and (3) the relocation of red-cockaded
woodpeckers into artificial cavities to establish new breeding
populations. Building artificial cavities is necessary because most
existing trees are not suitable for the red-cockaded woodpecker to carve
cavities.
In addition, during the 1990s, FWS worked with timber companies and other
industries to determine the conditions under which these entities would
assist in recovery efforts for the species, given that some habitat and
potential habitat were privately owned. FWS officials report that
agreements with these entities have played an important role in the
red-cockaded woodpecker's recovery, and also provide private landowners
with economic and legal predictability regarding the uses of their land.
An FWS official reports that red-cockaded woodpecker populations have
steadily increased, from 4,600 groups in 1995 to 5,900 groups in 2005
(groups include a mating pair and other individuals who help build nesting
cavities.) While these increases are promising, the FWS official estimates
that, because of the time it takes for the woodpecker's habitat to mature,
it will take at least 25 years to downlist the species and over 50 years
to meet the population and habitat requirements for delisting.
Costs and Partnerships
An FWS official reports that more than 150 public and private entities
have been involved with recovery efforts; therefore, the complete cost of
the red-cockaded woodpecker's recovery cannot be estimated. Some federal
agencies do have cost information-for example, the Department of Defense
reported spending about $62 million on the species from 1991 through 2003
(an average of about $5 million per year). The Forest Service spent
slightly more than $1 million each year for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. In
addition to federal agencies, FWS has agreements with many state agencies
and private entities in Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina to
implement recovery actions. Private entities involved include
International Paper, The Nature Conservancy, Plum Creek Timber Company,
Turner Endangered Species Fund, and private landowners.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
The southwestern subspecies of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii
extimus) was listed as endangered in 1995. The southwestern willow
flycatcher is a bird less than 6 inches long with a grayish-green back and
wings, light grey to olive breast, whitish throat, and pale yellowish
belly. It nests in dense growths of trees and shrubs in moist riparian
ecosystems in the arid southwestern United States and northern Mexico, and
migrates to Central America and northern South America for the fall and
winter.
Threats
FWS reports that habitat loss and predation are the primary threats to
this subspecies. There are three locations where a large proportion of the
subspecies breeds, all of which may be damaged by efforts to divert water
or tap into surrounding aquifers. Nest predation by avian, reptilian, and
mammalian predators also threatens the southwestern willow flycatcher, but
FWS officials say that it will not make recovery impossible.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the southwestern willow flycatcher in
2002. FWS officials report that it took over 5 years to develop the
recovery plan due to the amount of biological information needed and the
amount of stakeholder involvement in the plan's development. The recovery
plan reflects the contributions of over 240 stakeholders in seven states,
including state and federal agencies, private landowners, water management
organizations, and about 15 Native American tribes. The plan identifies
the actions that biologists believe are important for recovering the
species, with habitat restoration being the most critical action needed.
FWS officials report that, fortunately, flycatcher habitat can be
developed and occupied quickly, and officials expect this to aid in a
relatively quick recovery of the species. Although they are still early in
the implementation of the recovery plan and much work is needed, FWS is
optimistic about recovery of the species by 2020.
The flycatcher also benefits from being included in the Lower Colorado
River Multi-species Conservation Plan, which is a comprehensive plan for
more than 26 listed and unlisted species that occur in certain areas in
the lower Colorado River basin. Activities that are being implemented or
are planned under this conservation plan (fiscal year 2006 is the first
full year of implementation of this plan) include fish augmentation,
research, monitoring, and habitat restoration.
Cost and Partnerships
FWS officials report that such a wide array of stakeholders makes it
impossible to provide a cost estimate for the recovery efforts taken for
the southwestern willow flycatcher. FWS officials estimate that the
federal government pays about 60 percent of the total costs, state
agencies about 20 to 25 percent, and other entities about 15 percent. They
report that the top five types of expenditures are for annual surveying
and monitoring, land acquisition, habitat restoration, research, and
complying with legal requirements. FWS estimates that, collectively, state
agencies in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah
have spent about $60 million on the southwestern willow flycatcher since
the subspecies was listed in 1995. This includes annual expenses of
slightly less than $1 million for habitat improvement and about $1 million
for surveying and monitoring 414 sites. FWS, other federal agencies, state
agencies, and entities seeking permits have spent about $44 million
complying with legal requirements, primarily associated with evaluating
the effects of projects on the species and its habitat, and, in some
cases, reducing and minimizing adverse effects the projects might have.
BOR and the U.S. Geological Survey have spent about $1 million on
research. FWS estimates that the flycatcher portion of the Lower Colorado
River Multi-species Conservation Plan will cost about $2.2 million per
year.
Whooping Crane
The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as endangered in 1967.
Whooping cranes weigh about 15 pounds and reach about 5 feet in height.
They require a wetlands habitat with water about 18 inches deep, such as
coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows,
rivers, and agricultural fields. Whooping cranes live 20 to 30 years in
the wild and up to 30 to 40 years in captivity, making them a relatively
long-lived species. Breeding pairs fledge chicks relatively late in their
lives-at about 5 to 7 years of age-and may only successfully fledge 5 to
10 chicks during their lifetime. Breeding pairs return to the same summer
and winter nesting territories each year.
The whooping crane's potential extinction was recognized as early as the
beginning of the twentieth century and, by 1941, there were only 15 or 16
known whooping cranes in the wild, all wintering in Texas.
Threats
The crane's population decline was largely due to the hunting and draining
of wetlands to convert land for agriculture. FWS officials report several
continuing threats to the whooping crane, including habitat loss along its
migratory routes and in its Texas gulf coast wintering area; development
of power lines and wind turbines along its migratory routes; declining
populations of the crane's primary food source, the blue crab; rising
water levels in coastal Texas attributed to global warming; and threats to
water quality in the refuge wetlands in Texas due to urban development and
potential chemical spills.
Role of Recovery Plan
Progress recovering the whooping crane is attributed to implementation of
recovery plan actions, as well as actions taken before the species was
even listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Specifically,
several actions in the first half of the century helped prevent the
extinction of the whooping crane. Passage of the 1916 Migratory Bird
Treaty Act ended legal hunting of the whooping crane; and the creation of
a national park in Canada in 1922 and a national wildlife refuge in Texas
in 1937 preserved essential habitat. However, these actions were not
sufficient to protect the crane from extinction and it was eventually
listed under the Endangered Species Act.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the whooping crane in 1980, revised it in
1986 and 1994, and produced a new draft revision in 2005. Important
recovery plan actions include the breeding of cranes in captivity with the
intent to re-introduce the crane into the wild. Re-introducing the crane
in this way will establish multiple self-sustaining wild populations. FWS
officials report that implementing the recovery plan is challenging
because they do not have control over major threats such as development,
river flows, power line locations, and climate change. However, FWS
officials report that the status of the whooping crane is improving, and
attribute this improvement to the implementation of some of the recovery
plan's actions, including increasing the population and providing
additional protection at the species' summer and winter habitats. FWS and
the Canadian Wildlife Service are maintaining what is believed to be an
historic growth rate for the whooping crane-about 4.5 percent per year.
FWS officials said that doing more to address impacts from power lines
along the crane's migratory routes is an important action remaining to
help with recovery, but that doing so is resource-intensive.
Currently, there are three whooping crane populations in the wild and
seven populations in captivity. One wild population nests in Canada and
winters in Texas, another migrates between Wisconsin and Florida, and the
third is a non-migratory population that lives in Florida. As of December
2005, the total population was estimated to be about 476 cranes: 341 in
the wild and 135 in captivity. FWS is hopeful about recovery of the
species and expects to downlist the whooping crane from endangered to
threatened around 2035.
Costs and Partnerships
The whooping crane recovery program is a joint effort between FWS and the
Canadian Wildlife Service. FWS officials estimate that about $82 million
has been spent recovering the whooping crane between fiscal years 1950 and
2005. However, this is likely an incomplete estimate because of the
numerous domestic and international government agencies and private
partners involved, including the Canadian government, the International
Crane Foundation, Operation Migration, the Platte River Whooping Crane
Maintenance Trust, the San Antonio Water System, the San Antonio Zoo, the
Calgary Zoo, the U.S. Geological Survey, the universities of Alberta and
Florida, and Texas A&M University. Officials stated that, in fiscal year
2005, the U.S. and Canadian governments spent about $2.5 million, private
entities spent about $1.2 million, and universities spent about $38,000 on
recovery actions for the crane. FWS officials stated that it costs about
$1 million annually to produce 25 whooping cranes in captivity, and that
this expense has been shared between government and nongovernmental
entities.
Fishes
Borax Lake Chub
The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) was listed as endangered in 1980 by
an emergency regulation and was listed on a non-emergency basis in 1982.
The chub is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake, a natural 10-acre lake
fed by thermal springs that are situated atop large sodium-borate deposits
in Oregon.
Threats
FWS reports that the initial primary threat to the Borax Lake chub was
habitat loss due to potential impact from geothermal energy development
and alteration of the lake's shoreline. However, an FWS review of the chub
in 2003 identified other threats to its water source. Specifically, the
aquifer that feeds Borax Lake may be at risk due to groundwater pumping on
private lands, and increased recreational use at the lake poses a threat
to the lake's water quality. Recreational use such as off-highway
vehicles, wading, camping, and boating, also increases the potential for
introducing invasive plants and animals that may harm the chub. The chub
is inherently vulnerable to catastrophic loss due to its highly limited
distribution and dependence on a single water source.
Recovery Plan Role
A recovery plan was approved for the Borax Lake chub in 1987. Key actions
called for by the recovery plan focus on protecting the lake ecosystem,
and include the acquisition of key private lands, protection of subsurface
waters, implementation of controls on human access, removal of livestock
grazing, and monitoring of the population. FWS reports that, of these
actions, the most significant that have been implemented are BLM's
designation of the land surrounding Borax Lake as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern in 1983, The Nature Conservancy's purchase of Borax
Lake and the surrounding private lands in 1993, The Nature Conservancy and
BLM's elimination of grazing within the critical habitat surrounding Borax
Lake, and the completion of numerous studies of the chub and other species
that led to a better understanding of the Borax Lake ecosystem.
Additionally, a crucial action for the species recovery that was external
to the recovery plan was the passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act of 2000, which withdrew public lands from
mineral and geothermal development within most of the area surrounding
Borax Lake.
FWS reports that it has met many of the chub's recovery objectives over
the last two decades and that the species may be nearing recovery. Actions
needed to downlist the chub from endangered to threatened include the
development of a conservation agreement (or a memorandum of understanding)
between FWS, BLM, The Nature Conservancy, and the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, to clarify roles and responsibilities associated with
the management of the chub and the Borax Lake ecosystem. Other actions
likely needed before delisting include (1) assessing visitor use of Borax
Lake; (2) eliminating inappropriate vehicle and boat access to reduce the
threat of invasive species; (3) investigating the use of interpretive
signs, boardwalks, and designated observation sites to explain the unique
and fragile features of the ecosystem; (4) conducting additional research
to determine the risks of developing groundwater resources on private
lands, public lands with private subsurface rights, and (pending the
results of additional research) acquiring groundwater and/or surface
rights as needed; and (5) developing a contingency plan that would
identify procedures, needed equipment, and responsibilities for collecting
fish in case of an emergency.
Cost and Partnerships
An FWS official reported that information on the implementation costs of
recovery actions, by agency or organization, is limited; however, the
official estimated that less than $50,000 has been spent on the chub in
the last decade. Over the last 5 years, FWS has spent approximately
$20,000 on recovery implementation, of which $5,000 was used to assemble a
scientific panel for a study of the status of the Borax Lake chub and
$15,000 was allocated for monitoring (and the development of a long-term
monitoring plan). Key partners in the chub's recovery effort have been The
Nature Conservancy, BLM, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Colorado Pikeminnow
The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), originally called the
Colorado squawfish, was listed as endangered in 1967. The Colorado
pikeminnow is the largest North American minnow; weights over 79 pounds
and lengths of almost 6 feet have been recorded. However, more recently,
specimens weighing more than 15 pounds have been rare. Natural populations
live in rivers in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, while hatchery-reared
Colorado pikeminnow have been stocked in the Salt and Verde Rivers in
Arizona. The largest population of Colorado pikeminnow is found in the
Green River in Colorado and Utah, although FWS officials report that this
population declined from 3,100 in 2001 to 2,300 in 2003. The population in
the Colorado River has been increasing since estimates began in 1991.
Threats
FWS officials report that the primary threats to the Colorado pikeminnow
are reduced water flow in rivers due to consumptive use, stream flow
regulation, and drought; hydromodification due to dams; and competition
with, and predation by, nonnative fish in their habitat. Dams have
fragmented rivers and blocked fish passages, while the reservoirs formed
by these dams were stocked for recreational fishing with nonnative fishes
that prey upon the Colorado pikeminnow and compete with it for food.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Colorado pikeminnow in 1978 and
revised it in 1991; the plan was revised again in 2002 to include more
specific recovery goals. The Colorado pikeminnow is one of four fish
covered by both the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.3 FWS
officials report that management actions in the recovery plan that address
threats have been implemented, successfully moving the pikeminnow towards
recovery. Objectives for downlisting the Colorado pikeminnow include
maintaining a specified number of naturally self-sustaining populations in
two to three areas. To meet these objectives, actions have been taken on
all the major rivers in the Upper Colorado River Basin (including the San
Juan River Basin); these actions include ensuring appropriate water flow
and quality, and controlling problematic nonnative fishes. FWS officials
report that the pikeminnow responds quickly to habitat improvements and
reproduces quickly; they hope to delist the species around 2015.
Costs and Partnerships
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program track expenditures for the
Colorado pikeminnow, the razorback sucker, the bonytail, and the humpback
chub together, so costs specific to Colorado pikeminnow recovery are not
available.4 Both programs are funded primarily by power revenues from the
Colorado River Storage Project and long-term cost sharing between the four
participating states-Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.5 FWS is one
of many program partners, including other federal agencies; Native
American tribes; and private entities like the Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association, the Colorado Water Congress, the Utah Water
Users Association, The Nature Conservancy, and Western Resource Advocates.
From fiscal years 1989 through 2006, the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program spent more than $161 million on endangered fish
recovery, of which FWS provided more than $20 million. From fiscal years
1992 through 2006, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program spent more than $34.6 million on endangered fish recovery, of
which FWS provided more than $1.6 million.
Razorback Sucker
The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) was listed as endangered in
1991. It grows to about 2.5 feet in length and weighs less than 7 pounds.
In the mid 1970s, less than 100 adult razorback suckers were estimated to
live in the middle Green River in Colorado and Utah. Currently, it is
found in small numbers in rivers in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada,
and Utah, with the largest concentration in Lake Mojave.
Threats
FWS officials report that the biggest threats to the razorback sucker are
stream flow regulation in rivers, habitat modifications, competition and
predation by nonnative fish stocked for recreational fishing, pesticides,
and pollution.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the razorback sucker in 1998 and amended
it in 2002 to include more specific goals. The razorback sucker is one of
four fish the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program are working to
recover.6 FWS officials report that management actions in the recovery
plan are being implemented and have been important to recovery progress
made for the species. These actions include efforts to expand existing
populations and establish new ones, ensure appropriate water flow and
quality, control problematic nonnative fishes, acquire and protect
floodplain habitat, minimize the risk of hazardous-materials spills in
critical habitat areas, and minimize the threat of hybridization with the
white sucker. Reintroducing hatchery-produced razorback suckers has been
the foundation for successfully reestablishing self-sustaining populations
of the species in several Colorado and Utah rivers. For example,
population surveys have found the number of fish increased from about 100
in the mid-1970s to about 2,700 in the early 2000s. FWS officials report
that they anticipate delisting the species around 2025.
Costs and Partnerships
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program track expenditures for the
razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, and humpback chub
together, so costs specific to the razorback sucker recovery are not
available.7 Both programs are funded primarily by revenues from the
Colorado River Storage Project, and long-term cost sharing between the
four participating states-Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.8 FWS is
one of many program partners, including other federal agencies; Native
American tribes; and private sector entities like the Colorado River
Energy Distributors Association, the Colorado Water Congress, the Utah
Water Users Association, The Nature Conservancy, and Western Resource
Advocates. From fiscal year 1989 through 2006, the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program spent more than $161 million on
endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided more than $20 million. For
fiscal years 1992 through 2006, the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program spent more than $34.6 million on endangered fish
recovery, of which FWS provided more than $1.6 million.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow
The Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) was listed as
endangered in 1994. The minnow is a 4-inch long silver and white fish that
historically lived throughout the Rio Grande River basin in New Mexico and
Texas. When listed, it occupied only 5 percent of its historic range-a
187-mile area of the Rio Grande River in New Mexico-and had been
completely extirpated from the Pecos River and downstream portions of the
Rio Grande River.
Threats
FWS officials cite habitat modification as the primary threat to the
species, which they attribute to several causes, such as stream
modification and channelization; regulation of river flow to provide water
for agricultural and industrial uses; diminished water quality caused by
municipal, industrial, and agricultural discharges; and competition with
or predation by introduced nonnative fish species. FWS traces the decline
of the silvery minnow all the way back to 1916, when Elephant Butte Dam,
one of five dams constructed within the minnow's habitat, closed its
gates. Nonnative fish species that were stocked into the reservoirs
created by the dams often completely eliminated native fish species.
Droughts have also posed problems for the species, as in 1996, when 30
miles of river went dry.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Rio Grande silvery minnow in 1999 and
is currently revising it. It is scheduled to be complete in 2006 and will
continue many of the actions in the current plan. FWS officials report
that the most successful recovery actions for the minnow, which are all
included in the current recovery plan, are cooperative water management,
habitat restoration, and captive propagation and release of minnows-over
600,000 silvery minnows have been released into the wild since 2002.
Another critical action in the recovery plan includes efforts to establish
habitat and re-establish minnow populations outside its current range in
the Rio Grande River. FWS has initiated processes to establish an
experimental population in Big Bend National Park in Texas. FWS hopes to
finalize these processes by the fall of 2007 and begin stocking fish in
Big Bend in the spring of 2008. FWS officials estimate the minnow will be
delisted around 2030, but this is contingent on continued successful
reintroduction of the species.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials report that they cannot provide comprehensive recovery cost
estimates for the silvery minnow because of the large number of partners
involved. However, FWS officials report that the Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Collaborative Program and BOR have spent the most on
recovery actions since 2001-about $28 million and $11 million,
respectively. Other expenditures for recovery actions for the minnow
include about $500,000 by FWS and $5 million by the Interstate Stream
Commission in New Mexico. The collaborative program is a partnership of 20
organizations, including the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the
Corps, the Interstate Stream Commission, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The program is focused on protecting and improving the status of
endangered species along the Middle Rio Grande River including the
Southwestern willow flycatcher (another listed species we reviewed for
this report). These two species benefit from actions to restore water
flows and habitat.
Snails
Magazine Mountain Shagreen
The Magazine Mountain shagreen (Mesodon magazinensis) was listed as
threatened in 1989. The shagreen is a brown or buff-colored snail about
one-half inch wide and less than one-half inch high. It is known to live
only in rock debris along the base of cliffs on the north and west slopes
of Mount Magazine in the Ozark National Forest in western Arkansas.
Threats
FWS officials cite the potential for habitat loss as the greatest threat
to the shagreen because it relies on a single, highly unique habitat.
Threats to the species when it was listed included a proposal by the
Department of Defense, which would have brought heavy military equipment
into the shagreen's habitat, and the development of a state park on Mount
Magazine. Today, the species remains vulnerable to catastrophic events,
such as wildfire, which could completely destroy its habitat.
Role of Recovery Plan
The two primary threats to the snail when it was listed were mitigated by
actions that were outside of the recovery plan for the species.
Specifically, the Forest Service designated Mount Magazine as a "special
interest area," which affords protection to the species by prohibiting
certain activities such as timber harvesting and the use of herbicides and
pesticides. The Department of Defense withdrew its proposal for military
operations in the area because it conflicted with the Forest Service's
land management plan for the area. In addition, FWS participated in the
preparation of an environmental impact statement for the development of
the proposed state park, which led to a memorandum of understanding
between FWS, the Forest Service, and the Arkansas State Parks agency. The
memorandum of understanding ensures protection of the species during the
development of the park.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the shagreen in 1994 and, with its
partners, has implemented most of the actions. Two of the important
recovery tasks in the plan were (1) the Forest Service's monitoring of the
shagreen population for 10 years-which is almost complete-and (2) FWS, the
Forest Service, and the State of Arkansas entering into a memorandum of
agreement to share in recovery efforts and protection of the species.
Additional recovery actions that have been important for the species
include better planning in regards to prescribed fires, timber harvests,
and use of chemical fire retardants within the shagreen habitat. These
actions were not included in FWS's recovery plan, but were part of the
Forest Service's Ozark National Forest Management Plan and the special
interest area designation of Mount Magazine. Additionally, FWS and the
Forest Service have held numerous informal consultations on fire
management, and are developing a new method of monitoring overall forest
health that would include monitoring other snails that inhabit the forest
floor as surrogates for the shagreen. Although Forest Service surveys show
that the population appears to be stable, it remains listed because
funding for the research needed to delist it had not been available until
this year. FWS reports that it may be able to delist the species by 2010.
Costs and Partnerships
According to an FWS official, the Forest Service estimates that the cost
to monitor the Magazine Mountain shagreen has been about $1,000 per year
for the last 9 years. This constitutes at least 75 percent of the total
amount of funds the Forest Service has spent to recover the shagreen. The
other 25 percent of Forest Service costs were for supporting actions, such
as revising the land management plan for the area and developing land
management standards to protect the shagreen. The proposed biological
research needed to support delisting the species will cost about $90,000.
FWS, the Forest Service, and the University of Arkansas have recently
committed about $30,000 each to this effort. Research is planned to begin
in the summer of 2006 and will take about 3 years to complete.
Insects
Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly
The Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema) was discovered
and identified as a new species in 1978, and listed as endangered in 1991.
The Uncompahgre fritillary has rust-brown wings crisscrossed with black
bars, and a 1-inch wingspan. Its habitat range is one of the smallest of
North American butterfly species-patches of snow willow plants in alpine
meadows above 12,000 feet, on northeast facing slopes, in the San Juan
Mountains of southern Colorado. Two Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly
colonies were initially found on Mount Uncompahgre and Redcloud Peak.
Threats
An FWS official reports that the greatest threats to the Uncompahgre
fritillary butterfly are humans trying to collect it; and trampling of its
larvae by humans and livestock. In addition, changes in climate, such as
hotter or drier weather, may be responsible for observed decreases in
butterfly populations in certain years.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the Uncompahgre fritillary
butterfly in March 1994. The plan calls for 10 colonies of butteflies to
be stable for 10 years before the species can be delisted. Tasks in the
recovery plan that have helped improve the species' status include
enforcing restrictions on collection; searching for new colonies;
monitoring population status and climatic trends; and researching habitat
requirements, threats, and propagation. Monitoring has identified nine
additional colonies in the San Juan Mountains that appear to be stable.
The colonies were found entirely on BLM and Forest Service land. To
prevent collection and trampling of the species, the Forest Service and
BLM erected signs to serve as notice to collection prohibitions and
modified trails to divert hikers and livestock away from butterfly
colonies. According to the FWS official, collectors are generally
dissuaded by the signs and the presence of researchers in the area.
Additionally, research has led to a better understanding of the species'
habitat needs. FWS officials said that they may be able to delist the
species around 2015.
Costs and Partnerships
According to an FWS official, about $40,000 was spent in fiscal year 2003
for recovery activities for this species-about $9,000 by FWS; $13,000 by
the Forest Service, and $18,000 by BLM-primarily for research and
monitoring. Three national forests have been involved in these efforts:
the Gunnison National Forest has provided about $7,000 annually for at
least the past 10 years, the Rio Grande National Forest has provided about
$1,500 annually for the past 4 years, and the San Juan National Forest has
provided about $1,000 annually for the past 2 years. BLM provides about
$3,000 annually for research and monitoring, and has incurred additional
costs for researchers' housing, trail maintenance, signage, and staff
time. Additionally, the FWS official to whom we spoke estimates that,
since 1991, FWS has spent about $9,000 annually for staff time and for a
vehicle to access butterfly habitat.
Crustaceans
Socorro Isopod
The Socorro isopod (Thermosphaeroma thermophilum) was listed as endangered
in 1978. The isopod is a freshwater crustacean about 4 to 13 millimeters
long with a flattened, segmented body, seven pairs of legs, antennae on
the head, and oar-like extensions on its last segment. It survives in warm
water with a very narrow range of temperature and salinity. It is endemic
to the outflow of Sedillo Spring, a thermal spring found near the base of
the Socorro Mountains in New Mexico. The Socorro isopod is of particular
scientific interest because it is one of only two freshwater isopods in
the primarily marine sphaeromidae family.
Threats
FWS reports that the potential for habitat loss is the greatest threat to
the Socorro isopod given its narrow habitat requirements and restricted
distribution. The spring that the species depends on has been modified
since the early 1900s, when a bathhouse was built to take advantage of its
warm water. In addition, the aquifer that supplies water to the spring
could be lost or degraded due to drought and/or human uses. The water
rights to the spring and the bathhouse are privately owned, and there is
no long-term conservation agreement with the property owner to protect the
species.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Socorro isopod in 1982. FWS reports
that they have completed all planned recovery actions deemed critical to
the Socorro isopod's survival that are within their capabilities. These
include stablizing and protecting the populations and their habitats,
including a more secure water flow; and conducting additional research and
monitoring. However, even before a recovery plan was in place for the
isopod, an essential action was implemented that proved critical to the
species' survival. Specifically, captive populations were established in
1977 in order to protect the species against extinction. These populations
saved this species when, in August 1988, tree roots blocked the spring's
flow and the wild population of Socorro isopods became extinct. After the
spring's flow was restored in September 1988, isopods from the captive
populations were reintroduced. The threat of extinction of this species
was further mitigated in 1990, when Socorro isopods from the native and
captive populations were introduced into a new facility called the Socorro
Isopod Propagation Facility. This facility consists of eight cement tanks
located in a secure area one-half mile north of the bathhouse, and is fed
by water from the same spring. The population at this facility has been
monitored monthly since November 1994, and FWS reports that it is stable.
However, FWS has yet to obtain a long-term conservation agreement with the
private landowner although the landowner has taken steps to protect
the bathhouse and spring. FWS reports that the lack of an agreement means
that the wild population will likely remain susceptible to extirpation for
the foreseeable future. As a result, it is unlikely that the Socorro
isopod will ever be delisted, although it may eventually be downlisted.
Cost and Partnerships
FWS reports that the Socorro isopod has been an inexpensive species to
protect. One of the highest expenditures was $29,000 to build the
propagation facility in 1989. Most of the recovery and maintenance costs
have been funded with Section 6 grants to the state of New Mexico.
Partners in the recovery efforts include FWS, the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish, the cities of Albuquerque and Socorro, and the private
owner of the water rights and bathhouse at Sedillo Spring.
Plants
Ash Meadows Gumplant, Ash Meadows Sunray, and Spring-Loving Centaury
Three plants-the Ash Meadows gumplant (Grindelia fraxino-pratensis), the
Ash Meadows sunray (Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata), and the
spring-loving centaury (Centaurium namophilum)-were listed as threatened
at the same time in 1985. Ash Meadows is a 50,000-acre region of desert
uplands and spring-fed oasis in the Mojave Desert that straddles the
California-Nevada border. FWS manages about one half of this area as the
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The Ash Meadows gumplant and
spring-loving centaury are wetlands plants with similar habitat needs,
while the Ash Meadows sunray is an upland plant that requires a much drier
environment. The gumplant has yellow flowers and is a biennial or
perennial that lives along streams and pools. The centaury has pink
flowers and is an annual plant that occurs on moist to wet clay soils. The
sunray has yellow flowers and is a perennial plant that occurs only in
saline soil and limestone outcroppings in Nevada.
Threats
FWS officials report that the primary threats to the three plants, at the
time they were listed, were development and water diversion that would
have resulted from a planned resort community in the Ash Meadows region.
An additional threat specific to the sunray was trampling by cattle and
horses, and now this species is threatened by potential mineral
development. Currently, the primary threat to the centaury and gumplant is
from invasive plants. Five thousand acres of the wildlife refuge were
agricultural lands that went fallow, and invasive species began to expand
in the area. One species, the Russian knapweed, is a particular threat to
the centaury and gumplant because its woody stalks increase the likelihood
of wildfires.
Role of Recovery Plan
The threat of development and water diversion to all three plants was
eliminated when The Nature Conservancy purchased 12,654 acres in Ash
Meadows; it was later sold to FWS to establish the Ash Meadows National
Wildlife Refuge in 1984. Grazing was removed from the refuge in 1985.
These actions occurred prior to FWS approving a recovery plan for the
three Ash Meadow species, and nine others, in 1990. Recovery plan
objectives include collecting basic information about the species and
securing land and water rights. Land management activities essential to
the species' recovery are carried out by FWS and BLM. Almost all of BLM's
land is within the refuge and therefore managed by FWS. BLM also owns land
surrounding the refuge and designated it as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern, which provides protection for the fish and wildlife
resources occurring there.
These actions have been important for improving the outlook for the
species, but FWS officials cannot estimate a recovery date for the
centaury and gumplant because they are unsure how to control the invasive
plants that threaten the species. In addition, while they report that they
believe the sunray is abundant, delisting is precluded because much of its
habitat remains open to clay mineral extraction. Although FWS has acquired
some of the mineral rights in the clay deposits, other lands remain open
to mineral development.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials report they cannot provide a recovery cost estimate for
these three species because most of the recovery actions also help other
species in the area. They report that the largest expense, by far, has
been the acquisition of land and water rights. FWS operations and
maintenance for the refuge are the second largest expense while stream
restoration is a distant third, although FWS plans to increase these
efforts.
Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) was listed as
threatened in 1989. This plant species is usually no more than 6 inches
tall and has dark, leathery, heart-shaped evergreen leaves, and beige to
dark brown jug-shaped flowers. It occurs in a small portion of the upper
piedmont region of North Carolina and South Carolina, where it grows in
streamside habitats and acidic soil on bluffs and adjacent slopes. At the
time of listing, there were about 23 known populations in eight counties.
Threats
At the time of listing, threats to the species were residential and
industrial development, conversion of habitat to pasture or small ponds,
timber harvesting, and cattle grazing. FWS officials report that
residential and industrial development is now by far the primary threat to
the species. Most dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are located on
private property or in public utility and transportation corridors-areas
that are being developed at much higher rates than when the species was
listed. More than one half of the known populations were discovered during
environmental reviews for proposed development projects, and FWS officials
report that many of these populations have been at least partially
impacted by these developments. The introduction and spread of riparian
invasive plant species is also a threat.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS has not approved a recovery plan for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. The
agency developed a draft in association with a status review in 1997, but
because of the information gained during the review-including the
discovery of new populations and concerns the recovery partners raised
about taxonomy-the plan was never finalized. While found to be more
abundant than originally thought (surveys have more than tripled the
number of known populations and expanded the species distribution to 16
counties), the species was not proposed for downlisting after the 1997
review because some partners raised concerns as to whether or not the
species' survival could be assured, given that the majority of known
populations occur in a region of increasing development pressure. Partners
expressing concerns included the North Carolina Plant Conservation
Program, the North Carolina's Natural Heritage Program, university
botanists, and consultants; these partners also raised questions about the
taxonomy of the species, as well as the identification of the species at
some of the known sites.
Although the current population estimates indicate that the species has
the potential to be delisted, additional steps are needed to mitigate
development. According to FWS officials, to address this threat, FWS first
needs to determine which of the many populations are critical to the
species' continued survival, and whether they are stable. Once those
populations are identified, FWS would then need to obtain agreements from
landowners or acquire land to ensure continued protection. FWS officials
would like to quantify rates of habitat loss by examining available
development indicators, such as building permits, but have not obtained
sufficient funding to do so.
FWS initiated another status review in 2004 to determine whether the
species continued to warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act.
If the review finds that the species still warrants protection under the
act, FWS will propose recovery criteria, including specific actions for
different locations and estimated costs. FWS expects to pursue delisting
the heartleaf by 2015, pending the results of the status review. FWS
officials believe they can carry out any needed steps for this species
without a recovery plan.
Costs and Partnerships
Despite not having a final recovery plan, FWS works with other federal
agencies, state agencies, and private organizations to address existing
threats to the species. FWS officials could not estimate costs to recover
this species, but said that most recovery actions have been funded through
expenditures on Section 7 consultations. FWS has completed several
consultations with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and
associated state agencies, that have resulted in protections for some
populations of the heartleaf. Monitoring and management programs are still
being developed for many of these sites. Other partners that have assisted
FWS in surveying and monitoring dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations
include the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, university botanists, and consultants.
Eggert's Sunflower
Eggert's Sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) was listed as threatened in 1997.
Eggert's sunflower grows in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee at the
interface of woodlands and grassy openings. It thrives in tree stands with
little woody understory, and tolerates a wide range of light conditions,
moisture levels, and disturbance. It persists in, and may even invade,
roadsides, power line rights-of-way, and fields that have suitable open
habitat. The species was delisted in 2005 due to recovery and the
discovery of additional populations.
Threats
FWS officials report that threats to Eggert's sunflower at the time of
listing included: (1) fire suppression, because the species relies on
periodic fires to maintain suitable habitat; (2) loss of habitat due to
development; (3) invasion by nonnative plant species; (4) habitat impacts
from maintenance of roadsides and power lines, such as herbicide spraying
and mowing; and (5) herbivory, including by insects and white-tailed deer.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for Eggert's sunflower in 1999. The plan's
actions included prescribing fires, rescheduling mowing for road and
power-line maintenance to times when it is less likely to harm the
species, surveying the species, researching genetics, and establishing new
populations. Officials report that the recovery plan accurately identified
management actions necessary to recover this species, and noted that the
species responded well to these actions. At the time of delisting, 20
geographically distinct, self-sustaining populations had been protected by
conservation agreements.
Costs and Partnerships
Post-delisting activities include the monitoring of the 20 populations,
under conservation agreements with public and private landowners,
including Arnold Air Force Base, Mammoth Cave National Park, the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency, the City of Nashville, The Nature Conservancy,
and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. FWS officials could not estimate
the cost of this species' recovery, but estimated that the federal
government has provided about 80 percent of the cost, while state agencies
and private entities contributed the remaining 20 percent. FWS managed and
coordinated the recovery efforts, so its costs include salaries for
coordination, field work, and surveys.
Johnston's Frankenia
Johnston's frankenia (Frankenia johnstonii) was listed as endangered in
1984. The plant is a grayish or bluish-green low-lying shrub with small
leaves and white flowers, and turns bright red in the fall. At the time of
the listing, there were five known populations in two south Texas counties
and in Mexico, with an estimated total of 1,500 individual plants.
However, a 6-year study of this species resulted in the discovery of about
9 million plants in 58 populations in the United States and four
populations in Mexico. FWS proposed delisting the species in 2003 and
anticipates finalizing the delisting in 2006. FWS officials attribute the
lengthy delisting process to the lack of staff-the lead botanist for the
species resigned about 2 years ago and has not been replaced.
Threats
FWS officials report that they initially believed the primary threats to
Johnston's frankenia were its low numbers, low reproductive potential,
narrow range, and habitat modification by land management practices that
included overgrazing, root plowing, and planting non-native grasses.
However, at the time of the listing, limited data were available for this
species, partially because the species occurs primarily on privately owned
land that was not readily accessible; also, little focused research had
been conducted on the species.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for Johnston's frankenia in 1988,
and attribute the proposed delisting to the achievement of the recovery
plan's goals. A key task in the recovery plan was educating landowners and
gaining their cooperation in order to allow study and monitoring of the
species (through voluntary agreements) on private land. A botanist with
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spent 2 years building trust and
establishing working relationships with landowners, and an additional 4
years on monitoring research. This work led to the discovery of millions
of other plants. Other important recovery tasks included conducting
studies on the species' ecology and reproduction. Some of these studies
revealed that, while the species' reproductive potential is lower than
many flowering plant species, the frankenia appears to be adapted to the
arid climate and saline soils it inhabits, and can use sporadic rainfall
to germinate quickly.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials report that recovery efforts for Johnston's frankenia have
cost over $250,000. FWS estimated its expenditures at about $200,000; the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spent about $30,000; The Nature
Conservancy spent about $4,000; and Texas State University spent about
$20,000. FWS contracted with Texas State University to complete three
recovery tasks: (1) reproductive biology studies; (2) ecological studies,
including analyses of soil and the effects of land management practices;
and (3) a geographical information system project to assess threats to the
species.
Papery Whitlow-Wort
The papery whitlow-wort (Paronychia chartacea) was listed as threatened in
1987 and, at the time, was only known to inhabit south-central peninsular
Florida. In 1991, a new subspecies (Paronychia chartacea minima) was
discovered in the Florida panhandle; this subspecies is also considered as
threatened under the 1987 listing action. The papery whitlow-wort is a
short-lived herb with yellowish green branches and small cream-colored to
greenish colored flowers. It grows close to the ground and forms small
mats in disturbed, open, sandy sites such as road rights-of-way, recently
cleared high pineland areas, fire lanes, and trails.
Threats
FWS officials report that the primary threat to the papery whitlow-wort is
habitat loss due to residential, industrial, and commercial (including
citrus) development.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the papery whitlow-wort and 18
other Florida scrub and high pineland plant species in June 1996. The
recovery actions identified in the recovery plan were primarily additional
monitoring and protection of habitat. The south-central Florida subspecies
may soon be delisted because land needed to accommodate this species was
acquired or protected, and needed prescribed fire plans were implemented
in 2000. Delisting the south-central Florida subspecies is pending, due to
a lack of funding and FWS's evaluation of an upcoming study on the status
of numerous Florida plant species (including the papery whitlow-wort). FWS
officials report that they hope to delist the plant by 2010.
FWS officials report that the remaining efforts to delist the Florida
panhandle subspecies include reviewing land management agencies'
prescribed fire plans and practices for actions that could potentially
harm the papery whitlow-wort. FWS officials said that the species has
benefited from some conservation efforts, but it is not nearly as close to
delisting as the central Florida subspecies.
Cost and Partnerships
FWS officials report that FWS recovery expenditures for the papery
whitlow-wort have been minimal-about $19,000 from fiscal years 2001
through 2003. FWS did not have recovery expenditure data from its
partners. The species has benefited from state funding and Section 6 funds
to recover several other endangered species that share its habitat and are
included in the multi-species recovery plan. Partners in recovery efforts
for the papery whitlow-wort include the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, the Florida Division of Forestry, The Nature
Conservancy, the Archbold Biological Station, and Princeton University
(which is conducting the study on Floridian plant species). These partners
have worked on restoration of the natural habitat, fire management,
surveying, and demographic research.
Truckee Barberry
The Truckee barberry (Berberis sonnei) was listed as endangered in 1979.
The plant is a small evergreen shrub originally thought to exist only near
the Truckee River in California. However, a 1993 study reclassified the
plant and included it as part of a much more prevalent species. The
Truckee barberry was delisted in 2003.
Threats
The threat, at the time of listing, was that only one known Truckee
barberry population existed. This population was located on private
property.
Role of Recovery Plan
FWS approved a recovery plan for the Truckee barberry in 1984. The
objectives included protecting the only known population, surveying for
other populations, and establishing new ones. Additionally, because FWS
had only limited information on this plant's biology, the plan included
actions for genetics research to clarify the relationship of the species
to similar species, like the Berberis repens. These steps were critical to
determining that the species was not unique but rather a part of a more
common species.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS only had expenditure information for the delisting process, which took
3 years and about $33,000.
Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus
The Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) was listed as
threatened in 1979. The Uinta Basin hookless cactus is a spherical to
cylindrical, spiny succulent that commonly grows from 2 to 3 inches in
diameter and 2 to 6 inches in height. It occurs on rocky surfaces on river
terrace deposits and lower mesa slopes between elevations of 4,500 to
6,000 feet along the upper Colorado and Gunnison Rivers in western
Colorado, and the Green River in northeast Utah. At the time of listing,
FWS reported that there were approximately 15,000 individual plants.
Threats
FWS officials report that the primary threat to the Uinta Basin hookless
cactus is the demand for energy development in its habitat, which is
primarily BLM land and the Uinta and Ouray reservations of the Northern
Ute Tribe. According to the recovery plan, demand for energy development
increased dramatically around the time the species was listed in 1979, and
then decreased by 1990 when the recovery plan was issued. However, FWS
officials said that the demand has increased again over the last several
years, and that significant oil and gas development is in progress;
additional development within the species habitat is pending. Additional
threats include other development for highways, housing, and commercial
purposes; recreation; and trampling by livestock. The species is a
desirable horticultural specimen and, as such, is illegally collected.
Recovery Plan Role
FWS approved the Uinta Basin hookless cactus recovery plan in 1990.
However, according to FWS officials, the recovery plan has not been fully
implemented because it competes with many other species for funding.
Needed actions outlined in the recovery plan include achieving a total
population of 30,000 individuals, with at least 2,000 individuals in a
minimum of six separate populations; protecting land to provide for
long-term, undisturbed habitat; and conducting taxonomic studies on the
species. However, FWS officials stated that funding levels have only
allowed for completing a taxonomic study. FWS officials report they have
been involved in Section 7 consultations with BLM concerning oil and gas
leases affecting the cactus, and there have been adverse effect
determinations. FWS officials are currently working with BLM and oil and
gas companies to minimize the loss of cacti due to energy development in
its habitat. FWS officials report that the cactus could be delisted in 10
to 20 years, assuming adequate funding is received and habitat protection
measures are implemented.
Costs and Partnerships
FWS officials report that they cannot provide an accurate recovery cost
estimate because comprehensive cost data do not exist. FWS estimated that,
for the last 2 years, its field offices in Utah and Colorado have spent
between $30,000 and $40,000 annually on the Uinta Basin hookless cactus
and other plant species in the area, mostly for Section 7 consultations
with BLM and monitoring. FWS has also worked, on a limited basis, with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and some conservation groups, but did not have
any expenditure information for those entities.
Virginia Round-Leaf Birch
The Virginia round-leaf birch (Betula uber) was listed as endangered in
1978 and downlisted to threatened in 1994. It was the first tree protected
under the Endangered Species Act. The Virginia round-leaf birch grows to
about 40 feet tall and has dark bark and distinctive rounded leaves. It
lives for about 50 years, and produces large quantities of seeds about
every 5 years-a survival strategy that discourages seed eaters. The birch
needs continually moist, well-drained mineral-rich soil that is largely
free of debris so seeds can reach the ground and germinate. It also needs
open forest canopies to allow seedlings to get sunlight. The species was
thought to be extinct until 1975, when 41 trees were discovered in the
Cressy Creek area of Smyth County in southwestern Virginia.
Threats
FWS officials report that most of the Virginia round-leaf birch population
occurs on Forest Service land and that the primary threats to the species
when it was listed were its reproductive characteristics and distinct
habitat needs. For example, studies have shown that seed viability is
significantly lower in the round-leaf birch than in other dark-bark
birches in the Cressy Creek area. Reproduction is also limited by long
distances between pollen sources. Periodic droughts and floods, and
herbivory (mostly by deer and rabbits), are also threats. Additionally, in
the 1980s, vandalism by collectors led to the loss of numerous individual
trees-10 of the original 41 trees, 30 seedlings that had grown as a result
of Forest Service recovery actions, and 81 greenhouse seedlings grown by
the National Arboretum. FWS officials report that the Virginia round-leaf
birch does not currently have any imminent threats, however, due to its
limited geographic range, it faces challenges such as drought and
occasional flooding.
Role of Recovery Plan
Most of the Virginia round-leaf birch population is located in the
Jefferson National Forest in southwestern Virginia. According to FWS
officials, the Forest Service approved a management plan for the Virginia
round-leaf birch in 1976, and FWS approved a recovery plan in 1982 with
revisions in 1985 and 1990. FWS reported that several actions in the
recovery plan have been especially effective for recovering the
species-creating small openings in the canopy to allow sunlight to reach
seedlings, removing plant debris from around the existing trees to allow
their seeds to reach the soil and germinate, enclosing all the trees with
chicken wire to protect them from herbivory, and, to stop vandalism by
collectors, growing several trees in captivity and distributing seedlings
to the public. Some actions taken by the Forest Service have also been
important for the species, and were taken before the recovery plan was in
place. Specifically, the Forest Service fenced the two mature trees that
occurred in the Jefferson National Forest and conducted soil disturbance
activities to encourage seed germination. FWS is awaiting the results of a
status review of the species, which should be complete in 2006, before
pursuing delisting. FWS hopes to begin the delisting process in the next 2
to 3 years for the species and have it delisted by about 2015.
Cost and Partnerships
FWS officials report that they cannot provide a cost estimate for recovery
expenditures because most of the recovery activities were completed in the
1980s and much of the documentation is no longer available. The Forest
Service and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
which listed the species as endangered at the state level in 1979, have
led recovery efforts. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
provided funding for cultivation of birch seedlings for distribution to
arboreta, botanical gardens, and the public. Other partners include the
National Arboretum, which coordinated the distribution of seedlings to the
public; various conservation organizations; universities; and private
entities.
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of the Interior
(360704)
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-730 .
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology,
click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-730 , a report to congressional requesters
September 2006
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (the services) are responsible for administration and
implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The act generally
requires the services to develop recovery plans for endangered and
threatened species-species facing extinction or likely to face extinction,
respectively. Recovery plans identify threats to the species' survival and
the actions needed to mitigate those threats.
Proposed amendments to the act are under consideration and GAO was asked
to provide information to facilitate this effort. In April 2006, GAO
issued a report providing high-level information on the extent to which
recovery plans contain estimates of when species are expected to be
recovered, among other things. This follow-on report provides more
detailed information on the factors that affect species recovery and the
importance of recovery plans in recovery efforts. For 31 species-selected
because they were nearing recovery, or had significant attention devoted
to them and thus would be expected to be making progress towards
recovery-GAO (1) identifies factors affecting the length of time to
recover the species and (2) describes the role recovery plans have played
in recovering these species. The Department of the Interior agreed with
the facts presented in this report. The Department of Commerce declined to
comment.
Many factors affect the length of time it takes to recover the 31 species
GAO reviewed. Specifically, 19 of these species have been recently
delisted (removed from the list of endangered and threatened species) or
are likely to be delisted within the next 25 years either because (1) they
faced a primary threat that has been or is being mitigated; (2) they were
found to be more prevalent than biologists thought at the time they were
listed and/or habitats have been secured for the species; or (3) they are
expected to respond relatively quickly to recovery efforts because, for
example, they reproduce quickly in the presence of good habitat. The
remaining 12 species are much farther away from being delisted, and for
some, recovery is uncertain. Some of these species are not expected to
recover for many decades because they respond relatively slowly to
recovery efforts, for example, because they reproduce slowly. Recovery for
the remaining species is uncertain either because their habitat is
difficult to protect, or because not enough is known about the threats
facing the species or how to mitigate those threats.
Recovery plans have played an important role in the recovery efforts of
nearly all of the species GAO reviewed by identifying many of the actions
the services' biologists deemed most important to the species' recovery.
The services' biologists report that these actions have contributed, at
least in part, to the progress made in recovering these species. For
example, recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker is dependent on having
sufficient habitat-the species nests in cavities that they peck out of old
pine trees, but logging largely eliminated these trees from the
woodpecker's range. The recovery plan identifies measures to protect the
habitat, including land acquisition and conservation agreements with
landowners, as well as steps to provide artificial nest boxes until pines
mature enough to provide natural habitat for the birds. The services'
biologists told us that these actions have significantly improved this
species' prospects for recovery. However, for about one-half of the
species GAO reviewed, actions beyond those in the recovery plans also
played an important role in progress toward the species' recovery. For
example, the banning of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
(DDT) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972-a year before the
Endangered Species Act was enacted-has been critical to recovery of the
bald eagle.
*** End of document. ***