Endangered Species: Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest Gains
(Letter Report, 05/13/99, GAO/RCED-99-102).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Caribou Recovery Program, focusing on the: (1) amount and source of
funds expended on the woodland caribou recovery program; (2) results of
the program, including the outcome of efforts to augment the population
and the impact of the recovery efforts on land use; and (3) future
direction of the recovery program.

GAO noted that: (1) the United States and British Columbia spent an
estimated $4.7 million on efforts to restore the woodland caribou
population from 1984 through 1998; (2) the Fish and Wildlife Service
provided the majority of these funds, spending about $3.2 million; (3)
these funds were used primarily for increasing the existing caribou
population by transplanting other caribou to the southern Selkirk
Mountains and conducting follow-up monitoring; (4) the Forest Service
and British Columbia estimated that they spent about $781,000 and
$31,000, respectively, on caribou recovery efforts; (5) the caribou
recovery program has achieved modest gains; (6) however, despite these
efforts, the overall size of the southern Selkirk population has
increased by only about 18 animals, to a total of about 48; (7) the
recovery program also has not achieved its goal of establishing two new
self-sustaining herds, one in Idaho and another in Washington; (8) this
limited population increase is due to high mortality among transplanted
caribou and the deaths of some resident caribou; (9) although the cause
of death is unknown for many caribou, researchers believe that
predation, mainly by cougars, is the most common cause; (10) the
recovery program has succeeded in mapping caribou habitat, developing
caribou habitat management guidelines, completing research on various
aspects of caribou ecology, developing information and education
programs, providing law enforcement, and monitoring the caribou
population; (11) the impact on land use due specifically to caribou
recovery efforts has been relatively minor; (12) according to the Forest
Service, some restrictions have been placed on timber harvesting and a
small portion of the caribou habitat has been closed to snowmobiling;
(13) officials involved in planning future caribou recovery efforts
agreed that, for the immediate future, the program's highest priority is
to maintain the core population of caribou centered around Stagleap
Provincial Park; (14) the range of this population includes northeastern
Washington and northern Idaho, as well as southeastern British Columbia;
(15) however, the availability of caribou for further augmenting the
population is uncertain; (16) another high-priority task will be to
investigate the causes of and manage caribou mortality; (17) the
cooperating agencies recently initiated a study of cougar populations
and their predation on caribou in the southern Selkirks; and (18) an
overriding concern of officials involved in planning future recovery
efforts is whether there will be adequate funding for the program.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-102
     TITLE:  Endangered Species: Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved
	     Modest Gains
      DATE:  05/13/99
   SUBJECT:  Endangered animals
	     Wildlife conservation
	     Funds management
	     Federal/state relations
	     International cooperation
IDENTIFIER:  FWS Caribou Recovery Program
	     Selkirk Mountains
	     British Columbia (Canada)
	     Idaho
	     Washington
	     Stagleap Provincial Park (Canada)

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
ENDANGERED SPECIES: Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest
Gains GAO/RCED-99-102 United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable Larry E. Craig, U. S. Senate

May 1999 ENDANGERED SPECIES Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved
Modest Gains

GAO/RCED-99-102

  GAO/RCED-99-102

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

B-282101 May 13, 1999 The Honorable Larry E. Craig United State
Senate

Dear Senator Craig: Since the 1960s, the last remaining woodland
caribou population in the contiguous United States has inhabited
the southern Selkirk Mountains. The southern Selkirk Mountains are
located in northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and
southeastern British Columbia. As recently as the 1950s, this
population consisted of approximately 100 animals. However, by the
early 1980s, it had dwindled to about 30. In 1983, the southern
Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou was granted
emergency protection under the Endangered Species Act. A final
ruling of endangered status was published in February 1984. In
1985, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service,
the agency primarily responsible for carrying out the act for land
species, approved the first recovery plan for the southern Selkirk
Mountains woodland caribou. Since then, federal and state agencies
in the United States and ministries in British Columbia have
participated in a cooperative program to recover the caribou.
Figure 1 depicts a woodland caribou.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 1

B-282101

Figure 1: The Woodland Caribou

Source: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Concerned about the adequacy of the recovery program's funding and
accomplishments, you asked us to provide you with information on
(1) the amount and source of funds expended on the woodland
caribou recovery program; (2) the results of the program,
including the outcome of efforts to augment the population and the
impact of the recovery efforts on land use; and (3) the future
direction of the recovery program. In addition, you asked us for
information on the number and type of research reports that

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 2

B-282101

have been prepared on woodland caribou with Fish and Wildlife
Service funding. Details on these reports are provided in appendix
I of this report.

Results in Brief The United States and British Columbia spent an
estimated $4.7 million on efforts to restore the woodland caribou
population from 1984 through

1998. In the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service provided
the majority of these funds, spending about $3.2 million. The
largest portion of the Service's expenditures, about $1.6 million,
was in the form of grants to Idaho and Washington. These funds
were used primarily for increasing the existing caribou population
by transplanting other caribou (augmentation) to the southern
Selkirk Mountains and conducting follow- up monitoring on the
results of the augmentation effort. The Forest Service reported
expenditures of about $781,000 during this period for activities
such as habitat surveys, augmentation efforts, and monitoring. In
addition, Idaho and Washington reported spending about $240,000
and $419,000 respectively, for such activities as transplanting
and monitoring caribou, providing law enforcement, and developing
public information and education programs. British Columbia
estimated that it spent about $31,000 on caribou recovery efforts.

To date, the caribou recovery program has achieved modest gains.
One of its most significant achievements has been the maintenance
of a core population of woodland caribou centered in the southern
Selkirk Mountains near British Columbia's Stagleap Provincial
Park. In total, 103 caribou have been transplanted from separate
populations in British Columbia to augment the southern Selkirk
population. Most recovery program officials we contacted believe
that without this augmentation, the southern Selkirk population
would probably no longer exist. However, despite these efforts,
the overall size of the southern Selkirk population has increased
by only about 18 animals, to a total of about 48. The recovery
program also has not achieved its goal of establishing two new
self- sustaining herds, one in Idaho and another in Washington.
This limited population increase is due to the high mortality
among transplanted caribou and the deaths of some resident
(nontransplanted) caribou. Although the cause of death is unknown
for many caribou, researchers currently believe that predation
(killing), mainly by cougars, is the most common cause. The
recovery program has succeeded in mapping caribou habitat,
developing caribou habitat management guidelines, completing
research on various aspects of caribou ecology, developing
information and education programs, providing law enforcement, and
monitoring the caribou population. The impact on land use due
specifically to caribou

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 3

B-282101

recovery efforts has been relatively minor. Specifically,
according to the Forest Service, which manages most of the land
within the U. S. portion of the caribou recovery zone, some
restrictions have been placed on timber harvesting and a small
portion of the caribou habitat has been closed to snowmobiling.
Forest Service officials noted that even if the caribou recovery
efforts were terminated, many land- use restrictions, such as road
closures, would remain in effect to protect, among other things,
old- growth forests; watersheds; and other species, such as
grizzly bears.

Officials involved in planning future caribou recovery efforts
agreed that, for the immediate future, the program's highest
priority is to maintain the core population of caribou centered
around Stagleap Provincial Park. The range of this population
includes northeastern Washington and northern Idaho, as well as
southeastern British Columbia. However, the availability of
caribou for further augmenting the population is uncertain. For
example, no woodland caribou are available from British Columbia
in 1999. Another high- priority task will be to investigate the
causes of and manage caribou mortality. Toward this end, the
cooperating agencies recently initiated a study of cougar
populations and their predation on caribou in the southern
Selkirks. Other high- priority tasks include producing a
consolidated map of caribou habitat, minimizing the impact of
recreation on caribou in the recovery zone, and expanding
information and education programs to obtain additional public
support for caribou recovery. However, an overriding concern of
officials involved in planning future recovery efforts is whether
there will be adequate funding for the program. For example, in
fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Washington and Idaho received only
about 65 and 57 percent, respectively, of the grant funds they
requested from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Background Historically, as figure 2 shows, woodland caribou were
distributed throughout much of Canada and portions of the northern
tier of the United

States. There are two varieties, or ecotypes, of woodland caribou
mountain and northern. The two ecotypes are not genetically
distinct and differ only in the use they make of their habitat and
in their behavior. Currently, the only mountain caribou that
regularly inhabit the contiguous United States is the population
of the southern Selkirk Mountains. The range of these caribou is
restricted to a relatively small area in southeastern British
Columbia and extreme northeastern Washington and northern Idaho.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 4

B-282101

Figure 2: Present and Historical Range of Woodland Caribou in
North America

B-282101

In 1971, U. S. and Canadian resource management agencies signed a
cooperative agreement to investigate and monitor the caribou. The
agencies included the Forest Service, the Washington Department of
Game, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, the British Columbia
Fish and Wildlife Branch, the British Columbia Forest Service, and
the University of Idaho. The agreement resulted in the formation
of the International Mountain Caribou Steering Committee and the
International Mountain Caribou Technical Committee. The steering
committee was established to approve study plans and funding and
to help set direction for caribou recovery efforts and for the
technical committee. The technical committee was tasked with
coordinating caribou management and research studies and serving
as a clearinghouse for information that promotes management
activities designed to reverse the decline of the caribou
population. The cooperative agreement produced a series of
population and habitat studies in the 1970s and 1980s. Both
committees are still active and are key participants in current
caribou recovery efforts.

In 1977, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission designated the caribou
as an endangered species in the state. The Washington Game
Commission designated the caribou as endangered in 1982. In
February 1984, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed
the southern Selkirk population of woodland caribou as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Under ESA, once a species is identified as threatened or
endangered the responsible agency (in the case of the caribou,
FWS) must generally develop and implement a recovery plan. 1 A
recovery plan details the specific tasks that are considered
necessary to recover a species. The plan can identify (but not
obligate) other parties, such as federal, state and private
entities, as cooperating agencies. Implementing a recovery plan is
contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary
constraints affecting the participants. A recovery plan may also
be modified to reflect changes in the status of a species, the
completion of recovery tasks, and new findings that reflect the
latest available scientific information.

In 1982, the International Mountain Caribou Technical Committee
began preparing a management plan for the woodland caribou. FWS
adopted a revised version of this document as the official
recovery plan for the caribou in 1985. The recovery plan
identified the following as cooperating agencies in the caribou
recovery effort: FWS; the Fish and Wildlife Branch of the British
Columbia Ministry of Environment (currently, the Wildlife

1 More information on the development of recovery plans is
provided in app. II.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 6

B-282101

Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks); the
British Columbia Forest Service (part of the Ministry of Forests);
the Forest Service (Colville and Idaho Panhandle National
Forests); the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; the Washington
Department of Game (currently the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife); and the University of Idaho.

In 1991, FWS appointed its own caribou recovery team to advise the
agency on caribou recovery efforts. The recovery team completed a
revised recovery plan in 1994. The revised plan identified all of
the previously identified entities as cooperators in the new plan,
as well as Washington State University and the Idaho Department of
Lands. While these agencies agreed to cooperate in carrying out
the recovery plans, the resources to implement the plans are
controlled by congressional appropriations and the agencies'
budgets and priorities.

FWS' recovery plans for the southern Selkirk woodland caribou
identified a variety of management and research actions necessary
for the species' recovery. These included collecting information
on and managing caribou habitat, determining caribou population
characteristics, maintaining the population through various
efforts to reduce caribou mortality, and informing and involving
the public and agency personnel about caribou and caribou
management. The 1985 recovery plan also called for assessing the
feasibility of augmenting the existing population by introducing
caribou transplanted from other herds. The consensus of the
biological community at the time was that augmentation was the
only available method that could reasonably be expected to achieve
the population's recovery.

As figure 3 shows, a recovery zone that includes the general area
used by the caribou has been delineated. It covers about 2,200
square miles and includes national forest, state, private, and
Canadian lands. The recovery zone encompasses the geographic area
in the southern Selkirk Mountains where caribou management efforts
are now focused.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 7

B-282101

Figure 3: The Southern Selkirk Woodland Caribou Recovery Zone

Kootenay Lake Nelson

British Columbia Bonners

Ferry Priest

Lake Highway 3

Kootenai River Pend Oreille River

Washington Idaho

Source: Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 8

B-282101

For more background on the history of woodland caribou in the
southern Selkirk Mountains and the history of recovery efforts,
see appendix II.

An Estimated $4.7 Million Has Been Spent for Caribou Recovery

From 1984, when woodland caribou were listed as endangered under
ESA, through 1998, federal and state agencies in the United States
and British Columbia's Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
spent an estimated $4.7 million on efforts to recover the southern
Selkirk population. Federal expenditures are estimated at about $4
million and include primarily those of FWS and the Forest Service
and, to a much lesser extent, those of the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management and the Department of
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Idaho
and Washington reported expenditures of about $240,000 and
$419,000, respectively. Finally, British Columbia's Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks reported estimated expenditures of
about $31,000. As figure 4 shows, most of the caribou recovery
expenditures came from the U. S. government. However, it should be
noted that the estimated expenditures for British Columbia include
only the salary expenses of staff who participated in augmentation
activities and costs related to a study of cougar predation on
caribou. The British Columbia estimates do not include the direct
and indirect value (expressed in monetary terms) of caribou that
the province donated to the recovery effort and other recovery-
related activities for which no expenditure records were
available.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 9

B-282101

Figure 4: Sources of Funding for Caribou Recovery Efforts, 1984-
98 0.7%

British Columbia ($. 03)

14.1%  State ($. 66)

85.2%

Federal ($ 3.98) Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest
tenth of a percent. Dollars are in millions rounded to two decimal
places.

Source: GAO's analysis of reported data.

FWS' Expenditures FWS estimated that its expenditures on the
woodland caribou recovery program totaled about $3.2 million. The
largest category of FWS' expenditures, about $1.6 million, 2 was
the federal share of the ESA Section 6 grants provided to Idaho
and Washington for recovery activities. States that have active
programs for the conservation of species protected under ESA and
cooperative agreements with FWS may receive Section 6 grants to
fund their recovery efforts. The grants provided to Idaho and
Washington specify a federal cost share of 90 percent and a state
share of 10 percent. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife performed the recovery
work using the grants primarily to fund activities related to
augmenting the existing southern Selkirk population, including
monitoring the distribution, movement, and survival of the
transplanted caribou. Other recovery activities funded by

2 This figure represents the total federal share of Section 6
grant obligations from 1984 through the end of fiscal year 1998.
The actual expenditures as of that date were about $1.5 million.
In addition, the amounts for five grants provided to Idaho were
adjusted because they are multispecies ecosystem grants and only
about 35 percent of the grant funds related to caribou recovery.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 10

B-282101

these grants include developing a census technique for counting
the caribou and performing the census, conducted annually since
1991.

In addition to Section 6 grants, Idaho received grants
administered by FWS under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Act, commonly referred to as the Pittman- Robertson Act. This act
provides federal aid to states for the management and restoration
of wildlife. The estimated federal funding for caribou under these
grants, which specify a federal cost share of 75 percent and a
state share of 25 percent, totaled about $47,000. 3 The work
performed under these grants included research on caribou ecology
and assistance in developing caribou management plans.

FWS also spent about $924,000 for research on woodland caribou.
Specifically, the National Ecology Research Center conducted a
series of research projects over a 9- year period that focused
primarily on the caribou's early winter habitat and diet but also
included research on such topics as caribou genetics and late
winter caribou foraging ecology. 4 Additional information on this
research is provided in appendix I, which contains a summary of
reports that were based, in whole or in part, on this research.

Finally, FWS' remaining expenditures, approximately $600,000,
included general recovery funding and funding for law enforcement
efforts. General recovery funding covers the salary, travel, and
office expenses of FWS staff working on caribou recovery. For
example, under this category, FWS funded the preparation of a
revised recovery plan and of an augmentation plan, staff salaries
associated with participation in augmentation efforts, and the
costs of organizing and participating in caribou recovery team
meetings.

We used estimated expenditure information in this report for a
number of reasons. Specifically, FWS does not generally maintain
complete records of its ESA expenditures on a species- by- species
basis. Instead, FWS maintains its expenditure records by ESA
funding categories, such as listing, recovery, consultation, and
law enforcement. Accordingly, FWS'

3 This figure represents the estimated federal expenditures under
two Pittman- Robertson grants that fell within the time frame for
our review. The period covered by these grants was from July 1983
through June 1985.

4 This research was initiated at the Ecology Branch of FWS' Denver
Wildlife Research Center in 1984. The Ecology Branch then joined
FWS' Western Energy and Land Use Team, which later became part of
the National Ecology Research Center. In 1993, the National
Ecology Research Center and other organizations (or portions of
organizations) joined to form the National Biological Survey. This
organization was renamed the National Biological Service in 1995
and was merged into the U. S. Geological Survey in 1996. FWS has
not funded caribou research since 1992.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 11

B-282101

expenditure information is based on the best available data but
includes some estimated expenditures, and some data are missing.
For example, for the period from 1984 through 1988, FWS'
expenditure estimate is primarily limited to research and Section
6 grants. (FWS officials noted that records on additional
expenditures were not required until the passage of the 1988
amendments to ESA). Therefore, the expenditure estimate for these
years is conservative. In other years, the best available
information on caribou- related expenditures, according to FWS,
was a combined total that included some funding categories that
are not specifically related to recovery efforts. However, FWS
officials believe the reported expenditure information presents a
reasonably accurate estimate of its expenditures on woodland
caribou recovery efforts.

Forest Service's Expenditures

The Forest Service estimated that it spent about $781,000 on
caribou recovery efforts from 1984 through 1998. The largest
identifiable expenditure the Forest Service reported, totaling
about $60,000, was for surveying and analyzing caribou habitat.
However, some of this habitat work also related to the grizzly
bear. Other Forest Service funds were spent for augmentation
activities, mapping caribou habitat, monitoring the caribou
population, purchasing radio collars for an investigation of
cougar predation on caribou, funding graduate student research on
caribou, and costs associated with attending caribou recovery team
and technical committee meetings. The Forest Service's expenditure
estimate also includes the indirect costs of implementing caribou-
related tasks and of implementing threatened and endangered
species program activities that benefited both the caribou and
other species. Indirect costs include such items as the staff time
spent designing timber sales to prevent adverse effects on
caribou, considering the effects of other proposed land management
activities on caribou, developing land and resource management
plans to conserve caribou and their habitat, and coordinating with
states or other agencies on caribou habitat management.

Like FWS, the Forest Service does not generally maintain complete
expenditure records on a species- by- species basis. As a result,
the Forest Service's expenditure data include estimates. Also, the
Forest Service did not have complete records of its expenditures
on caribou recovery efforts for the entire 15- year period covered
by our review. For example, for 1984 through 1988, the only
available information concerned those expenditures that could be
identified by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest and did not
include expenditures by the Colville National Forest or Forest
Service regional offices. Accordingly, the estimates for this
period

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 12

B-282101

are conservative. According to the Forest Service, for 1989
through 1997, its expenditure estimates are more complete and
include indirect costs as detailed in the preceding paragraph. For
fiscal year 1998, the estimate includes only those expenditures
that could be attributed directly to caribou recovery efforts by
the Idaho Panhandle and Colville National Forests. As of February
1999, the Forest Service was compiling additional 1998 cost data;
however, these data were not available when we completed our
review. As a result, the cost estimate for fiscal year 1998 may be
also conservative.

Other Federal Agencies' Expenditures

The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also reported
expenditures for caribou recovery efforts. The Bureau of Land
Management estimated that it spent about $10,000 for monitoring
the caribou population while the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service estimated that it spent $720 that was related
to checking quarantined caribou for disease before they were
transplanted to the United States.

Idaho's and Washington's Expenditures

Idaho and Washington estimated their expenditures for caribou
recovery work at about $240,000 and $419,000, respectively. As
noted, both of these states received Section 6 grants to fund the
recovery work. In addition, Idaho received Pittman- Robertson
grants. Accordingly, Idaho's and Washington's expenditure
estimates include their contributions of funds required by these
grants. Both states noted, however, that they have spent funds in
excess of their contributions to these grants.

Idaho's expenditures supported law enforcement work; the
supervision of staff working under Section 6 grants; and the
administration of Section 6 grants, including the development of
grant proposals, the development of public information and
education programs, and the review of caribou- related reports.
Washington's estimated expenditures went for such activities as
preparing an augmentation plan; mapping caribou habitat features
using Geographic Information System technology; providing law
enforcement; providing information and education, including
establishing a caribou- related Internet site; performing tasks
related to transplanting and monitoring caribou; and attending
various meetings on caribou.

There are some limitations to the expenditure estimates provided
by the states. Specifically, the states did not have complete
records of their

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 13

B-282101

expenditures for all 15 years covered in our review. Accordingly,
the estimates of the states' expenditures are based on the best
available information. For example, during the period from 1986
through 1988, Idaho's estimated expenditures are limited to the
state's share of the Section 6 grant in effect then and are,
therefore, conservative. 5 This limitation is due to a lack of
historical program expenditure records. Additionally, the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's estimated
expenditures for the period from 1984 through 1992 are limited
mainly to the salary and travel costs incurred by the biologist
with lead responsibility for the agency's caribou recovery
efforts. Moreover, for 1998, Washington's expenditures are limited
to the state's share of the Section 6 grant that was then in
effect because a total expenditure estimate for the year was not
available for our review. Accordingly, for these time periods,
Washington's expenditure estimates are also conservative.

British Columbia's Expenditures

According to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, British
Columbia's expenditures were primarily related to efforts to
augment the southern Selkirk caribou population with caribou from
other parts of British Columbia and to study cougar predation on
caribou. The Ministry estimated these expenditures to be about
$31,000. 6 The augmentation- related expenditures (about $26,500)
represent the salaries of staff who participated in planning and
conducting the transplant operations, including preparing the
plans and assisting in locating and capturing the caribou for
transplant. The remaining expenditures were for the purchase of
radio collars and associated costs for the study of cougar
predation on caribou. The Ministry characterized its estimated
expenditures as conservative because they do not cover such costs
as the salaries and travel expenses for staff from the Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests who
attended recovery team, steering committee, or technical committee
meetings. The estimate also does not include the salaries of staff
from the ministries who were involved in planning timber harvests
so as to protect caribou habitat. According to the Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, since the ministries do not keep
records of such expenditures on a species- by- species basis, no
information on these expenditures was available. The Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks also noted that

5 Idaho's expenditures for these years were reported by the
state's fiscal year, which runs from July through June. 6 This
estimate is based on a Mar. 16, 1999, average exchange rate of
65.4 U. S. cents per Canadian dollar.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 14

B-282101

British Columbia would likely have incurred the costs for planning
timber harvests even if there were no U. S. caribou recovery
program, since British Columbia, including the Ministry of Forests
and private industry, is taking actions to protect the habitat of
the southern Selkirk caribou on its own behalf.

Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest Gains

FWS' recovery plans for the southern Selkirk Mountains caribou
called for taking a variety of actions to assist the declining
population. One of the most significant has been the transplanting
of over 100 caribou from other parts of British Columbia to the
southern Selkirk Mountains area. Most recovery program officials
we spoke to believe that this action is probably responsible for
the continued existence of a caribou population in the southern
Selkirk Mountains. However, because many transplanted and some
resident caribou have died, the net effect of the augmentation
effort has been a relatively small increase in the overall
population, from about 30 animals when the recovery effort started
in 1984 to about 48 animals today. FWS noted that the mortality
among the southern Selkirk transplants is in line with long- term
recovery objectives established by the Canadian Wildlife Service
for caribou in other areas. Furthermore, FWS believes that the
information gained from the augmentation effort is essential in
sustaining the recovery and is consistent with adaptive
management. 7 The current population consists of both transplanted
and resident caribou and moves freely across the borders of
Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia.

Although the recovery program has not succeeded in establishing
two new self- sustaining herds in the United States as planned, it
has mapped caribou habitat in the recovery zone, developed habitat
management guidelines, and completed research on certain aspects
of caribou ecology. Furthermore, according to recovery program
officials, restrictions on land use due specifically to the
caribou have been relatively minor. Other restrictions, such as
road closures on Forest Service lands to protect old- growth
timber reserves, watersheds, and grizzly bear, would remain even
if there were no recovery plan for the caribou.

Results of Augmentation Efforts

FWS' initial caribou recovery plan, approved in April 1985, called
for an assessment of the use of augmentation as a possible method
of increasing the southern Selkirk caribou population. At the
time, the existing

7 The concept of adaptive management is the basic premise for
recovery plans and conservation strategies. It recognizes the need
for flexibility and therefore allows FWS to modify the caribou
recovery program if monitoring and/ or research results indicate a
need for change.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 15

B-282101

population occupied the international border area of extreme
northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and southeastern British
Columbia. Later that year, the Forest Service issued a decision
notice that called for augmenting the existing population in
accordance with an augmentation plan that had been prepared by
representatives of the cooperating agencies. The augmentation plan
identified potential caribou capture locations in British Columbia
and evaluated potential release sites in Idaho and Washington.
Ball Creek in northern Idaho was selected as the release site
because of such factors as the condition and availability of
suitable habitat for a new caribou herd. In March 1987, 24 caribou
were transplanted from British Columbia to Ball Creek. A nearly
identical operation provided 24 additional caribou the following
year. Caribou were not available for transplant in 1989, but 12
more caribou were transplanted to Ball Creek in March 1990. All
transplanted animals were fitted with radio collars and have been
monitored extensively to determine their distribution and
movement, as well as their reproduction, mortality (including the
causes when possible), and survival rates. Through these
transplants, a second caribou herd was established in the southern
Selkirk Mountains, although it has decreased in size over time and
is therefore not currently self- sustaining.

In March 1994, FWS issued a revised recovery plan. The revised
plan called for, among other things, establishing a third self-
sustaining herd of caribou, this time in Washington. Additional
transplants were needed in Washington to reduce the risk of losing
caribou to a catastrophic event such as a large fire, and to
improve the distribution of caribou, increase the size of the
population, and further enhance the probability of recovery. After
a second augmentation plan was completed and approved, in April
1996, 19 caribou from British Columbia were released in the
Sullivan Lake area of the Colville National Forest in Washington.
An additional 13 caribou were transplanted to the same general
area in March 1997. Finally, in March 1998, 11 more caribou were
transplanted to the southern Selkirk Mountains. However, because
previously transplanted animals moved back and forth between
British Columbia and the United States, the 1998 transplants were
released just north of the U. S.- Canadian border at Kootenay Pass
in British Columbia.

According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the
Canadian release site had several advantages. Specifically, it
decreased transport- driving time and thereby reduced stress on
the caribou; it placed the caribou directly in a late winter
feeding site; and it reduced the project's costs, since roads near
the release site did not have to be plowed.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 16

B-282101

An official from British Columbia's Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks noted that using the Kootenay Pass release site also
eliminated the need for a costly and dangerous quarantine period
and increased the likelihood of the transplants' encountering
other caribou and taking up residence in that area rather than
dispersing. Researchers had also noticed by this time that while
the caribou transplanted during the 2 prior years exhibited
considerable movement, they tended to congregate in the Stagleap
Provincial Park area, just north of the Canadian border. The
transplants released in British Columbia followed the same
pattern. Within 2 weeks of their release near Kootenay Pass, all
the animals were located within the Idaho portion of the recovery
zone. These caribou continued to move and currently tend to
congregate with the core population centered around the Stagleap
Provincial Park area.

All of the Washington and British Columbia transplants were also
fitted with radio collars, and the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife has monitored their movements, survival, and causes
of death. Figure 5 shows the locations of the four release sites
in the recovery zone.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 17

B-282101

Figure 5: Caribou Release Sites in Idaho, Washington, and British
Columbia

British Columbia Idaho Washington

Ball Creek Priest

Lake Kootenay Pass

Nelson Stagleap Provincial Park

Sullivan Lake Caribou release site

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 18

B-282101

Through the augmentation efforts, 103 caribou were transplanted
from British Columbia to the southern Selkirk Mountains 60 in
Idaho, 32 in Washington, and 11 in British Columbia. As of October
1998, 59 of the 103 transplanted caribou had died (38 of the Idaho
transplants and 21 of the Washington transplants). Of the
remaining 44 transplanted caribou, 23 are alive (1 from Idaho and
22 from Washington/ British Columbia) and the status of the 21
others is unknown, primarily because their radio collars are lost
or have failed. Most recovery program officials we contacted
believe that the augmentation efforts have probably been
responsible for maintaining a core population of woodland caribou
in the southern Selkirk Mountains. However, an official from the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game said that he is not convinced
that the caribou population would no longer exist without
augmentation. He stated that a population of 25 to 30 animals
around Stagleap Provincial Park has survived for some time and
remains the core population. However, he added that the population
probably would not have grown or expanded without intervention.

Because so many transplanted and some resident caribou have died,
the increase in the overall size of the southern Selkirk
population is relatively small. Specifically, when the population
was listed under ESA, it was estimated to include about 30
caribou. In 1991, the year following the last of the Idaho
transplants, the population numbered about 47 caribou. The
population reached its highest level under the recovery effort in
1993, when it totaled about 51 individuals. However, it has
declined since to about 48 individuals, even with the addition of
the 43 caribou transplanted to Washington and British Columbia.
FWS stated that it would be inappropriate to judge the success or
failure of a reintroduction program on the basis of only 103
individuals transplanted over a 12- year period. According to FWS,
mortality of 57 percent (59 confirmed deaths out of a total of 103
transplanted caribou) would not be considered excessive,
especially for these types of animals. FWS noted that this
mortality is in line with long- term recovery objectives
established by the Canadian Wildlife Service in its recovery plan
for a population of woodland caribou located within the boundaries
of the Gaspesie Conservation Park in Canada. For example, the
long- term goal of this plan was to maintain a survival rate of 50
percent for calves aged 6 months to 2 years. Furthermore, FWS
stated that the information gained from the augmentation effort
could be used to conduct studies, pinpoint problems, and make
adjustments in recovery actions. According to FWS, adaptive
management is an ongoing, essential effort in sustaining the
recovery of the woodland caribou and of many other listed species
and typifies why recovery is frequently a slow,

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 19

B-282101

incremental process that is modified as monitoring and research
indicate a need for change.

In commenting on our report, the British Columbia Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks stated that, in general, the Ministry
considers annual adult caribou mortality rates in excess of 15
percent to be high. The Ministry noted that recent estimates of
adult mortality based on data from radio- collared caribou suggest
that the annual mortality rate is even higher. This is of
significant concern to the Ministry, which stated that identifying
and addressing the cause of this high mortality remains very
important for ensuring the long- term recovery of caribou in the
southern Selkirk Mountains.

The cause of death is not known for many southern Selkirk caribou,
primarily because by the time carcasses are located and examined,
too little remains to make an accurate determination. However,
predation, mainly by cougars, is the most common known cause of
death. Natural causes, poaching or hunting, and accidental falls
are other known causes. Some recovery program officials cautioned,
however, that the primary cause of the decline in the southern
Selkirk caribou population is currently unknown and it is
important not to designate predation as the ultimate reason. For
example, these officials noted that marginal habitat may be the
major problem.

Augmentation efforts have not succeeded in establishing two
additional self- sustaining herds in the United States as planned.
Some of the Idaho transplants remained near the release site and
established a small herd that is centered around Two Mouth Lakes,
Idaho. However, the size of this herd has declined steadily over
time from about 26 caribou in 1991 to 5 caribou in 1999. The
remaining Idaho transplants have died, left the southern Selkirk
Mountains, or congregated with the core population centered around
Stagleap Provincial Park. The Washington transplants have moved
throughout the recovery zone but have also tended to congregate
with the core population. In October 1998, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a progress report on its
augmentation efforts. The report stated that instead of
transplanting 60 or more caribou during the first 3 years of the
project as planned, the Department was able to transplant only 43
caribou. The primary reason for this shortfall was concern about
straining the source populations in British Columbia. The report
indicated that transplanting only a limited number of animals
might have diminished the success of the augmentation effort.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 20

B-282101

Other Recovery Program Efforts

In addition to the augmentation efforts, FWS' recovery plans
included a variety of other tasks. Generally, these tasks involved
such activities as gathering information on and managing caribou
habitat, conducting research on characteristics of the caribou
population, endeavoring to reduce caribou mortality, and informing
and involving the public and agency personnel about caribou and
caribou management. Further information on other recovery program
tasks and accomplishments appears in appendix III.

Program's Limited Impact on Land Use

According to recovery program officials, the impact on land use
due specifically to caribou recovery efforts has been relatively
minor. Specifically, some restrictions have been placed on timber
harvesting within the recovery zone, and a small portion of the
recovery zone has been closed to snowmobiling. Forest Service
officials noted that even if the caribou recovery efforts were
terminated, many land- use restrictions would remain in effect to
protect, among other things, old- growth timber reserves;
watersheds; and other species, such as grizzly bears.

When considering the southern Selkirk caribou for listing under
ESA, FWS identified improperly designed timber harvesting as a
threat to the population. For example, timber harvesting alters
caribou habitat and creates additional human access to habitat,
which can increase the potential for mortality. Timber cutting can
eliminate escape cover, migration corridors, and the ability of
the habitat to produce lichens a major source of nutrition for the
caribou. As a result of the caribou recovery effort, some types
and methods of timber harvesting have been restricted or modified
on lands administered by the Forest Service. According to Forest
Service officials, while caribou habitat management guidelines do
not prohibit timber harvesting in the recovery zone, they do
affect the amount and type of timber that can be harvested within
important caribou habitat. For example, to protect or promote the
long- term improvement of caribou habitat, commercial operations
to thin forests are designed from the outset to develop habitat
with high canopy cover or higher levels of lichen production.

Besides imposing some restrictions on timber harvesting, the
Forest Service has closed about 25 square miles of the 2,200-
square- mile recovery zone to snowmobiling specifically to protect
the caribou. Snowmobiling can harm caribou and their habitat
either by directly harassing the animals or by disturbing the
habitat to the extent that it becomes unacceptable. The closure
was instituted in 1994, after the caribou herd was twice

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 21

B-282101

displaced by snowmobiles. Forest Service officials also stated
that no Forest Service roads have been closed specifically to
protect the caribou. However, because the caribou recovery area
overlaps with the Selkirk grizzly bear recovery area, the majority
of the road- use restrictions have been put in place primarily to
provide security and core habitat for bear. Forest Service
officials noted that these road closures and restrictions also
benefit caribou and other wildlife species.

Forest Service officials noted that even if the recovery efforts
for caribou were terminated, many land- use restrictions would
remain in the recovery area. These restrictions include land
management objectives for the protection and management of other
species, such as grizzly bear and their habitat, and of other
areas, including the Salmo- Priest Wilderness area, the proposed
Upper Priest Wild and Scenic River, roadless areas, and unsuitable
timberland areas. The recovery area is also managed for the
protection of old- growth timber reserves and for the preservation
of watersheds and riparian areas. Finally, the recovery zone
includes areas that contain typical or unique natural ecosystems
and are reserved for scientific and educational purposes.

The Future of the Caribou Recovery Program

In January 1999, officials involved in caribou recovery efforts
drafted an action plan that set priorities for the future of the
program. Maintaining the core population of caribou currently
residing in the southern Selkirk Mountains was identified as the
highest- priority task. However, the availability of caribou for
further augmenting the population, if needed, is uncertain. The
draft action plan also identified the investigation and management
of caribou mortality, including predation by cougar, as high-
priority tasks. Other immediate needs include producing a
consolidated habitat map for the recovery area, minimizing the
impact of winter recreation on caribou, and expanding information
and education efforts. However, an overriding concern of the
officials involved in these planning efforts is whether adequate
funding will be available from the cooperating agencies to
accomplish these high- priority tasks. According to FWS, other
long- term efforts needed to ensure the recovery of the caribou
would be examined during FWS' status review of the recovery plan,
which is due in 1999.

Immediate Needs of the Recovery Program

After the last augmentation effort was completed in March 1998,
the caribou recovery team, the International Mountain Caribou
Steering Committee and the International Mountain Caribou
Technical Committee

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 22

B-282101

began a series of meetings to plan the future of the recovery
program. As a result of these meetings, they drafted an action
plan that outlines efforts immediately needed to maintain the
existing caribou population and its habitat. In March 1999,
members of the steering committee agreed to name the action plan
the Emergency Caribou Recovery Action Plan.

To accomplish the highest- priority need maintenance of the core
population, the draft action plan proposes to continue the annual
census to determine the size of the remaining population and to
augment the population when it reaches a level equal to or less
than 50 animals. The draft action plan notes that 50 is considered
to be the short- term critical threshold for augmentation.
However, the plan also states that augmentation will occur if the
annual population trend is decreasing and the 3- year recruitment
rate (the percentage of calves that live to be a year old) is less
than 15 percent or if British Columbia has additional animals
available for transplant.

While the success of this strategy is likely to depend on future
augmentation efforts, as of January 1999, the availability of
caribou for such efforts was uncertain. For example, although the
current population includes only about 48 animals, no caribou are
available for transplant in 1999. In commenting on our report,
British Columbia's Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks stated
that the availability of caribou for transplant to the southern
Selkirk population has, and continues to be, a major issue for
British Columbia. The Ministry noted it is currently reviewing the
population status of mountain caribou in British Columbia to
determine whether potential source populations can sustain the
loss of additional caribou for transplant.

The draft action plan also addresses the need to establish a goal
for the total southern Selkirk caribou population. It was agreed,
on the basis of the best professional judgment of those involved
in the recovery effort, that the preliminary goal would be 200
animals. This figure could change with additional research. The
group further agreed on the area near Stagleap Provincial Park as
the preferred release site for future augmentation efforts. 8
However, some U. S. agency representatives are concerned about the
impression created by using U. S. funds to transplant caribou to
the Canadian portion of the recovery zone. In response, other
officials noted that the range of these animals still includes the
United States. Furthermore, they stated that many different
species of wildlife,

8 The advantages of using the area near Stagleap Provincial Park
are discussed in this report under the heading Results of
Augmentation Efforts.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 23

B-282101

including grizzly bear and certain waterfowl, regularly move back
and forth across the international border and managing all aspects
of these ecosystems necessitates work across these boundaries. The
draft action plan identified a number of other tasks, including
investigating and managing caribou mortality. This task involves
(1) monitoring radio- collared caribou to locate those that have
died and attempt to determine the causes of death and (2) studying
cougar predation on caribou. Currently, researchers in the United
States and British Columbia believe that cougar predation may be
the most important factor affecting the caribou's survival.
Accordingly, a study of cougar predation has already been
initiated. The study plan calls for radio collaring and monitoring
40 cougar (10 each in Idaho and Washington, and 20 in British
Columbia). The objectives of the study include (1) assessing the
extent and frequency of cougar predation on caribou, (2)
determining whether predation is specific to individual cougar,
and (3) determining whether cougar predation is based on
opportunity or need. Using ESA Section 6 grant funding, the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has hired a doctoral
candidate from Washington State University who will coordinate the
analysis of the cougar monitoring data. As of March 22, 1999, 11
cougar had been collared 7 by Washington and 4 by British
Columbia. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game had also begun its
collaring effort. If cougar that kill caribou are identified, the
agency with jurisdiction over where they are found will have
responsibility for deciding how to deal with them.

Other tasks identified as immediate needs include producing a
consolidated map of the entire recovery zone, using Geographic
Information System data. The effort would focus initially on
Forest Service land, but recovery officials hope to extend the map
to include Idaho State and British Columbia lands as well. Another
task is to minimize the impact of recreation on caribou. This
effort will focus on winter recreation, particularly snowmobiling,
and will identify areas of existing or anticipated high snowmobile
use, determine where such use conflicts with caribou, and develop
recommendations for reducing or eliminating conflicts. An
immediate need to expand information and education efforts has
also been identified. This effort will involve summarizing ongoing
activities, improving the dissemination of existing information,
and identifying alternative funding sources.

In commenting on our report, the British Columbia Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks stated that it supports the following
priorities for caribou recovery in the southern Selkirks: (1)
ensure a commitment to maintain funding for future recovery tasks;
(2) produce a

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 24

B-282101

consolidated map of caribou habitat for British Columbia, Idaho,
and Washington; (3) establish agreements for zoning and protecting
critical winter habitats; (4) minimize recreational disturbance
within those habitats; (5) proceed with a caribou/ cougar morality
study, including an action plan to deal with cougars identified as
killing caribou; and (6) expand information and education programs
to obtain public support for caribou recovery.

As of February 1999, officials planning the recovery effort were
also developing an estimate of the costs to implement these high-
priority needs. In addition, the draft action plan states that
there are other longer- term tasks that need to be addressed to
ensure the recovery of the caribou. According to FWS, these long-
term efforts would be examined during FWS' status review of the
recovery plan, which is due in 1999.

Funding Concerns An overriding concern of officials planning
future caribou recovery efforts is whether adequate funding will
be available to implement the program's short- term and long- term
needs. For example, in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Washington and
Idaho received only about 65 and 57 percent, respectively, of the
Section 6 grant funding they requested. Specifically, in fiscal
year 1997, Washington asked for $225,000 and Idaho asked for
$189,000 for caribou recovery efforts. They received $140,000 and
$96,000, respectively. Both states asked for the same amounts in
fiscal year 1998; they received $153,200 and $120,200,
respectively. For fiscal year 1999, Washington was allocated about
$97,000 of the $202,500 it requested and Idaho was allocated
$120,000 of the $189,000 it requested. Idaho's Section 6 funding
requests for these years covered the Selkirk ecosystem, including
grizzly bear recovery projects. Only about 35 percent of the funds
were used for caribou recovery projects. FWS acknowledged that it
has not been able to fund caribou recovery work at requested
levels but noted that it receives a limited appropriation for
Section 6 grants that must be divided among 50 states. FWS stated
that these funds, which are allocated to FWS regions on the basis
of the number of species listed, are not sufficient to fund all
state- proposed recovery projects.

The funding concern was reiterated in a January 1999 letter from
the chairman of the steering committee to the director of FWS'
Region 1 in Portland, Oregon. The chairman noted that the partial
funding of recovery efforts financed through Section 6 grants has
compromised the success of these efforts over the past few years.
For example, because of funding constraints, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife has had to

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 25

B-282101

reduce the number of flights it makes to monitor radio- collared
caribou. This, in turn, has made it difficult to determine the
causes of some caribou deaths. Furthermore, there is also concern
about whether enough funding will be available to conduct a
complete predator study that will yield valid data.

The steering committee has also asked for an additional commitment
of FWS staff to the recovery program. According to the chairman,
caribou recovery is a multiagency, international program that
cannot succeed without the commitment of FWS staff to coordinate
the effort. Currently, according to FWS, its representative to the
caribou recovery team can spend only a relatively small portion of
her time on caribou recovery efforts because of a heavy workload
pertaining to other ESA issues and activities.

British Columbia officials have also expressed concern about the
commitment of adequate U. S. resources to the recovery effort. For
example, at a December 1998 steering committee meeting, the
Kootenay regional director for the Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks (the region that encompasses the Canadian portion of the
recovery zone) indicated that unless British Columbia gets a clear
signal of definite resolve from the United States to recover the
southern Selkirk caribou population, further augmentation of the
population will not be a high priority for British Columbia.

Finally, the chairman of the steering committee stated that
reversing the negative trend for the remaining caribou population
would require a strong commitment of staff and funding from all of
the participating agencies. He noted that while the other agencies
have provided, and are continuing to provide, financial support,
caribou recovery ultimately depends on a strong financial
commitment from FWS. Officials involved in planning future
recovery efforts recognize that all cooperating agencies need to
determine whether caribou recovery is a high priority, since
funding from these agencies is controlled by the priorities they
set. Accordingly, as of January 1999, recovery officials had
focused their efforts on obtaining a commitment for funding future
recovery tasks from their own agencies and from outside sources,
such as conservation groups.

Agency Comments We provided copies of a draft of this report to
the Department of the Interior and its Fish and Wildlife Service;
the Department of Agriculture's

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 26

B-282101

Forest Service; the British Columbia Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks; and the states of Idaho and Washington for their
review and comment. We received letters commenting on the report
from the Department of the Interior; the Forest Service; the
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We also received
comments from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Interior's letter stated that the Department was in general
agreement with our findings and offered a technical clarification
that we incorporated in the report. Interior's letter and our
response are included in appendix IV. The Forest Service's letter
stated that the agency concurred with the report as written (see
app. V).

According to the letter from the British Columbia Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, the report provides a good overview
of the recovery program. The Ministry noted, however, that it was
discouraged by the slow progress of the caribou recovery program.
Furthermore, the Ministry expressed significant concern about the
recent high mortality among radio- collared caribou and stated
that identifying and addressing the cause of this high mortality
remains a very important issue for ensuring the long- term
recovery of the southern Selkirk herd. In addition, the Ministry
identified the actions or priorities that it supports for caribou
recovery in the Selkirks. Finally, the Ministry noted that the
availability of caribou for transplant to the southern Selkirk
population has, and continues to be, a major issue for British
Columbia. The Ministry stated it is currently reviewing the
population status of mountain caribou in British Columbia to
determine if any of these populations could sustain a loss for
transplants. The Ministry noted, however, that any future
transplants from British Columbia would also depend upon a clear
signal of definite resolve from the United States to recover the
southern Selkirk caribou population. We included this information
in the report. The Ministry's letter and our responses are
included in appendix VI.

Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife noted that the report
is a good summary of caribou recovery efforts and accurately
reflects Washington's expenditures on this effort. The Department
also provided some technical clarifications that we incorporated
into the report. The Department's letter and our responses are
included in appendix VII.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game provided us with updated
information on the size of the caribou population, the number of
caribou

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 27

B-282101

remaining in the Idaho (Two Mouth Lakes) herd, and the location of
the Idaho release site. We revised the report accordingly.

Scope and Methodology

To determine the amount and source of funds expended on the
woodland caribou recovery program, we collected documentation and
interviewed officials from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
headquarters office in Washington, D. C.; Region 1 office in
Portland, Oregon; and Upper Columbia River Basin field office in
Spokane, Washington. We also collected information on expenditures
for research by FWS' National Ecology Research Center from 1984
through 1992. Additionally, we collected documentation and
interviewed officials from the Forest Service's headquarters
office in Washington, D. C., and Idaho Panhandle and Colville
National Forests; the Bureau of Land Management; the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service; the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game; the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; and the
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. We did
not independently verify the accuracy of this expenditure
information. We also reviewed ESA and additional information on
funding sources for recovery efforts.

Much of the expenditure information we obtained from the agencies
consisted of estimates of expenses for caribou recovery efforts.
Moreover, while we generally collected expenditure data for fiscal
years 1984- 98, in some cases, the agencies did not have complete
records of their expenditures for this period. Accordingly, in
these cases, the expenditures reported here are limited to the
information that was available from the agencies and, in some
instances, are likely to be conservative estimates of expenditures
for the caribou recovery program. In addition, in some cases, we
relied on expenditure information that the state and federal
agencies provided for inclusion in FWS' annual report to the
Congress entitled Federal and State Endangered Species
Expenditures. As with other expenditure data we collected, we did
not independently verify the accuracy of this information. With
respect to FWS and the Forest Service, the annual expenditure data
provided in this report differed, in most cases, from expenditure
information that we collected independently. However, FWS'
Assistant Director for Planning and Budget and the Forest
Service's Deputy Chief for Business Operations stated that, for
certain years covered in our review, the estimates provided for
the congressional report for their agencies are the most accurate
available. The Forest Service noted, for example, that the data it
provided for the congressional report included a more complete
array of reasonably identified expenditures,

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 28

B-282101

including various indirect costs, such as those for the staff time
spent designing timber sales that would not adversely affect
caribou and considering the effects of other proposed land
management activities on caribou.

To report expenditures by the Bureau of Land Management and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, we generally relied on
data provided in FWS' annual reports to the Congress. This report
was first issued for fiscal year 1989. Accordingly, the first year
for which we collected expenditure data for these agencies was
fiscal year 1989. In addition, at the completion of our review,
fiscal year 1995 was the most recent year for which FWS had
completed its report. The Bureau of Land Management, however,
provided us with some additional expenditure data that were not
included in FWS' reports. We included these data in our report.

To determine the results of the recovery program, including the
outcome of augmentation efforts and the impact of recovery efforts
on land use, we interviewed officials from agencies participating
in caribou recovery efforts. We also collected and reviewed
relevant documentation, such as ESA, proposed and final rules
leading to the caribou's listing under ESA, the initial and
revised caribou recovery plans, augmentation plans, and reports of
research performed and/ or funded by FWS. We also reviewed reports
from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife that summarize the results of
completed caribou augmentation efforts and other recovery
activities.

To determine the future direction of the recovery program, we
interviewed officials and obtained documentation from the
participating agencies. We also collected and reviewed the minutes
of meetings held by the caribou recovery team, the International
Mountain Caribou Steering Committee, and the International
Mountain Caribou Technical Committee. Finally, we reviewed their
draft action plan identifying high- priority tasks for future
recovery efforts.

We conducted our review from July 1998 through April 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Bruce
Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable Jamie Rappaport
Clark, Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Honorable
Daniel J. Glickman,

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 29

B-282101

Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable Mike Dombeck, Chief, U. S.
Forest Service; and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of
Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to
others upon request.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me at (202) 512- 3841. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix VIII.

Sincerely yours, Barry T. Hill Associate Director, Energy,

Resources, and Science Issues

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 30

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 31

Contents Letter 1 Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From
Woodland Caribou Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's National Ecology Research Center

34 Appendix II Woodland Caribou in the Southern Selkirk Mountains

50 Appendix III Examples of the Recovery Program's Tasks and
Accomplishments

54 Appendix IV Comments From the Department of the Interior

57

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 32

Contents

Appendix V Comments From the Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service

59 Appendix VI Comments From the British Columbia Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks

60 Appendix VII Comments From the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife

63 Appendix VIII Major Contributors to This Report

65 Figures Figure 1: The Woodland Caribou 2

Figure 2: Present and Historical Range of Woodland Caribou in
North America

5 Figure 3: The Southern Selkirk Woodland Caribou Recovery Zone 8
Figure 4: Sources of Funding for Caribou Recovery Efforts,

1984- 98 10

Figure 5: Caribou Release Sites in Idaho, Washington, and British
Columbia

18

Abbreviations

ESA Endangered Species Act FWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 33

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

The following reports, summarized in chronological order, were
based on woodland caribou studies performed or funded by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This research was initiated at the
Ecology Branch of FWS' Denver Wildlife Research Center in 1984.
The Ecology Branch then joined FWS' Western Energy and Land Use
Team, which later became part of the National Ecology Research
Center. In 1993, the National Ecology Research Center and other
organizations (or portions of organizations) were merged to form
the National Biological Survey. This organization was renamed the
National Biological Service in 1995 and was subsequently merged
into the U. S. Geological Survey in 1996. Although FWS has not
provided funding for caribou research since fiscal year 1992, the
results of funded studies have continued to be published, most
recently in 1998.

For each report we identified, we included an abstract describing
its findings. In most cases, the researchers that wrote the
reports prepared these abstracts. However, GAO prepared abstracts
for 10 of the reports. The GAO- prepared abstracts were
subsequently reviewed and approved by the primary researcher who
prepared the reports.

Chronological Listing of Reports Rominger, E. M., and J. L.
Oldemeyer. 1986. Forest and Snow Components of Selkirk Mountain
Caribou Early Winter Habitat. Unpublished Report, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 45 pp.

Abstract The Selkirk Mountain caribou population of northern
Idaho, northeastern Washington, and southeast British Columbia was
listed as an endangered species in 1983 under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. This isolated remnant caribou population
resides primarily in British Columbia, with a few individuals as
part- time residents in the United States (Scott and Servheen
1985). Although woodland caribou originally occurred in all
Canadian border states (Hall 1981) and 350 miles south of their
present range in Idaho (Johnson 1967), the Selkirk population of
25- 30 woodland caribou is considered the last remaining herd in
the 48 contiguous states.

Selkirk caribou select seasonal habitats within their home range
and movements include the classic double migration described by
Edwards and Ritcey (1959) for woodland caribou in Wells Gray
Provincial Park, British Columbia. Ecological and socioeconomic
factors combine to make early winter habitat the most critical
seasonal habitat. Early winter habitat

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 34

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

is located in the old- growth cedar/ hemlock forest types and
between this type and the higher- elevation spruce/ fir forest
type. Most early winter habitat occurs between 1375 and 1675
meters, generally on northerly slopes (Scott and Servheen 1985).
Old- growth cedar/ hemlock is economically important to the timber
industry because of the efficiency of harvest and consequently has
been extensively logged in both Canadian and U. S. caribou
habitat.

Caribou begin a major shift in diet selection during the onset of
early winter as plant aging and early snows decrease the
availability and efficiency of harvest of vascular plants. Soft
deep snows physically inhibit caribou from using the arboreal
lichen component of the spruce/ fir community until snow packs
settle and harden. Therefore, caribou must adapt a foraging
strategy intermediate to open fall grazing and late winter
foraging on arboreal lichens. Weather conditions make early winter
the most difficult time to monitor woodland caribou. Lack of
information during early winter for Selkirk caribou and studies of
woodland caribou (Edwards and Ritcey 1959, Stardom 1975,
Bloomfield 1980, Antifeau 1985) and the need to better understand
caribou use of early winter habitat in relation to forestry
practices was the impetus for this research.

Rominger, E. M., and J. L. Oldemeyer. 1987. Habitat Component
Mapping of Selkirk Mountain Caribou Early Winter Habitat in
Southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Unpublished Report, U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Fort
Collins, Colorado. 56 pp.

Abstract The Selkirk Mountain caribou population of northern
Idaho, northeast Washington, and southeast British Columbia was
listed as endangered in 1983 in accordance with the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. This isolated remnant caribou population
resides primarily in British Columbia, with a few individuals as
part- time residents in the United States (Scott and Servheen
1985).

Preliminary research during 1983- 84, by the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game, delineated population status, home range and
seasonal habitat use (Scott and Servheen 1985). This research
determined early winter habitat to be the most critical seasonal
habitat because of the substantial use of the economically
important old- growth western red cedar/ western hemlock community
and because snow reduced the availability of forage and initiated
the transition from summer forage comprised primarily of

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 35

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

vascular forage, to the late winter diet of almost exclusively
arboreal lichens. These concerns were the impetus for the
initiation of an in- depth study by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to map habitat components in critical drainages used by
caribou during early winter and monitor habitat components at
actual early winter caribou use sites during early winter
(Rominger and Oldemeyer 1986).

The objective of this report is to describe the physical and
silvicultural components of the Waldie and Curtis Creek drainages
and their tributaries. These two drainages are in British Columbia
on the west side of the Selkirk Range, where a majority of early
winter sightings of caribou during 1983- 84 occurred. This report
includes maps and site descriptions of the area mapped into
habitat components during the summer of 1985 and site descriptions
of caribou early winter sightings from 1983- 86 (Scott and
Servheen 1985, Rominger and Oldemeyer 1986). This report will
enable resource managers to evaluate future impacts of logging,
mining, and recreation on this portion of Selkirk caribou early
winter habitat. These data can also be compared with data from
caribou use sites and proportions of these drainages that provide
optimal habitat. Comparisons of these habitats with historical
range in the United States will enable biologists to better manage
reintroduced caribou. Climate, geology, caribou use of early
winter habitat, and other aspects of Selkirk caribou ecology are
addressed in separate reports (Crawford and Scott 1985, Scott and
Servheen 1985, Rominger and Oldemeyer 1986).

Rominger, E. M. 1987. Lichen- Bearing Windthrown Trees Are
Important to Selkirk Caribou Early- Winter Habitat. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Research Information Bulletin No. 87: 124.

Abstract The native woodland caribou population that inhabits
northern Idaho, northeastern Washington, and southeastern British
Columbia is currently composed of 25- 30 animals, with most
seasonal ranges occurring in Canada. In March 1987, 24 additional
woodland caribou were transplanted into northern Idaho from two
populations in British Columbia. The National Ecology Research
Center began investigating early winter habitat of the native
population in 1985. Early winter in the Selkirk Mountains is
defined as the period from first snowfall until snow depths and
other conditions enable caribou to ascend to late- winter habitats
in higher- elevation Engelmann spruce/ subalpine fir forests. This
seasonal habitat has been determined to be the most critical for
caribou survival.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 36

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

Rominger, E. M., and J. L. Oldemeyer. 1988. Quantification of
Woodland Caribou Early Winter Habitat, Selkirk Mountains, British
Columbia. Proceedings of the 3rd North American Caribou Workshop.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Technical Bulletin
No. 8: 161- 162.

Abstract In winter 1986- 87, there were 25- 30 woodland caribou in
the endangered population inhabiting the Selkirk Mountains in the
Pacific Northwest. These caribou ranged primarily in southeastern
British Columbia but also frequented northern Idaho and
northeastern Washington. In March 1987, 24 woodland caribou from
two British Columbia populations were transplanted to northern
Idaho to improve the Selkirk population's chances of long- term
survival.

In 1985, the National Ecology Center, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, began studying early winter habitat of the Selkirk
population, specifically during the period from first snowfall
until snow conditions permit/ cause caribou to move upslope to
forest communities at 1,500 meters to 1,800 meters elevation.
Early winter use occurs primarily in mature/ old- growth stands of
economically important timber in both the Engelmann spruce/
subalpine fir and the western red cedar/ western hemlock
communities; the area between the two communities is also used
extensively. The lower- elevation, more densely canopied cedar/
hemlock community is particularly important because snow is
shallower there, which reduces energy costs to caribou and extends
the availability of green vascular forage. In the higher-
elevation, more open- canopied spruce/ fir community, the
increased costs of locomotion through deeper snow are apparently
offset by increased availability of highly digestible arboreal
lichens.

Compared with randomly selected locations, actual caribou use
sites had significantly (P< 0.05) more lichen- bearing, recently
windthrown trees; were at higher elevation; and had lower slope
angles, canopy cover, and tree basal area. Arboreal lichen on
windthrown trees was apparently important forage because vascular
plants were buried by snow.

Because Selkirk caribou use spruce/ fir and cedar/ hemlock
communities extensively during early winter, we recommend that
mature old- growth stands for both forest types be maintained.
Special considerations should be given to stands on less steep
slopes where available arboreal lichen biomass is relatively high
and is replenished by trees which are commonly blown down.

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 37

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

Rominger, E. M., and J. L. Oldemeyer. 1989. Early- Winter Habitat
of Woodland Caribou, Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia. Journal
of Wildlife Management 53( 1): 238- 243.

Abstract We monitored early- winter habitat use by woodland
caribou in the southern Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia,
during November and December 1985- 86. We compared biological and
physical attributes of random locations within known early- winter
caribou range to actual caribou use sites. Univariate and
descriptive discriminate analysis indicated significant (P< 0.05)
separation of several habitat variables between random sites and
sites used by caribou. We observed caribou in old- growth stands
with moderate slopes (< 30 degrees); greater density of recently
windthrown, lichen- bearing trees; higher elevations; and less
canopy cover and total tree basal area than measured at random
plots. Because the Selkirk caribou use Engelmann spruce- subalpine
fir and western red cedar/ western hemlock communities, we
recommend maintenance of old- growth timber in these habitat
types.

Rominger, E. M. 1990. Caribou Diets and Arboreal Lichen
Availability. Proceedings of the Caribou Workshop, Ministry of
Environment, British Columbia. 4 pp.

Abstract Mr. Rominger looked at the lichen biomass estimates of
standing trees, blowdown/ litterfall, and effects of landform on
tree density. He also deals with forage intake rates, primarily
for barren ground caribou and reindeer. He suggests 2 kg/ day
rather than 5 kg/ day may be a more reasonable estimate. This is a
more reasonable estimate when compared with the dry forage and
intake of other species. He cites Detrick (1984) as the most
complete work, using the destructive technique of cutting
branches, collecting all the lichen, and weighing it. The
literature available usually refers to subalpine fir and Engelmann
spruce.

Factors to be considered in regard to the lichen intake rate of
woodland caribou are the nutritional values, energy variation in
foraging strategy, body size and winter severity. There is up to
twice the protein in arboreal lichen as compared with terrestrial
lichen. Foraging on arboreal lichen is probably more energy
efficient than cratering of barren ground caribou. Milder
(maritime) climates where caribou were not subjected to

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 38

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

temperature extremes should also be considered. However, the
larger body size of woodland caribou may cause an increase in
intake rate compared with barren ground caribou.

Rominger, E. M. 1990. Research Continues on Augmentation of the
Southern Selkirk Mountain Caribou Herd. Endangered Species
Technical Bulletin, Vol. XV( 8): 6.

Abstract Woodland caribou once occurred widely in forested regions
from southeastern Alaska, through much of Canada, to the northern
conterminous United States. Due to extensive habitat alteration
and unrestrictive shooting, however, only one population still
naturally occurs in the conterminous United States. In 1983, this
remnant herd, which occurs in the Selkirk Mountains of northern
Idaho, northeastern Washington, and southeastern British Columbia,
was estimated at 25- 30 individuals. The animals in this herd were
rarely seen in the United States because most of their seasonal
habitats were in Canada. The potential threats to the survival of
the southern Selkirk Mountain caribou herd while in the United
States, including poaching, habitat loss, collisions with motor
vehicles, and genetic problems from inbreeding, led the Fish and
Wildlife Service to list the population as endangered in February
1984 (see BULLETIN Vol. IX, No. 3).

Rominger, E. M., and J. L. Oldemeyer. 1990. Early- Winter Diet of
Woodland Caribou in Relation to Snow Accumulation, Selkirk
Mountains, British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
Vol. 68( 12): 2691- 2694.

Abstract Woodland caribou in the southern Selkirk Mountains of
British Columbia shift from a diet of primarily vascular plants
during snow- free months to an arboreal lichen- conifer diet
during late winter. We present evidence that caribou diets, during
the early- winter transition period, are influenced by snow
accumulation rates. Caribou shift to an arboreal lichen- conifer
diet earlier during winters of rapid snow accumulation and forage
extensively on myrtle boxwood, an evergreen shrub, and other
vascular plants during years of slower snow accumulation. The role
of coniferous forage in early- winter food habits is examined.
Forest management

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 39

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

strategies can be developed to provide habitat that will enable
caribou to forage in response to varying snow accumulation rates.

Rominger, E. M., J. L. Oldemeyer, R. W. T. Detrick, and D. R.
Johnson. 1990. Arboreal Lichen Biomass on Live and Dead Subalpine
Fir, Northern Idaho. Unpublished Report, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 35 pp.

Abstract Two estimates of arboreal lichen biomass on subalpine fir
were summed separately and combined to estimate the availability
of this forage for woodland caribou in high- snowpack ecosystems
of Southwest British Columbia and northwestern United States. We
estimated lichen biomass between two and six meters on standing
trees to determine availability at various snow depths during late
winter. This estimate was combined with a biomass value between
six meters and treetop to estimate lichen availability on whole
trees made available to caribou via windthrow. We sampled arboreal
lichen from more than 1,050 branches on 266 trees and snags
between two and six meters and more than 1,100 branches on 111
trees and snags between six meters and treetop. Total biomass
estimates for three diameter- size classes ranged from 444 to
1,170 grams for dead trees and from 716 to 3,075 grams for live
trees. Despite the universally large variances concomitant with
estimating mean arboreal lichen biomass, the averages of several
other studies on arboreal lichen biomass are similar to our
estimate for two to six meters on whole trees. These estimates of
arboreal lichen biomass will enable us to better understand the
winter ecology of woodland caribou.

Warren, C. D. 1990. Ecotypic Response and Habitat Use of Woodland
Caribou Translocated to the Southern Selkirk Mountains, Northern
Idaho. M. S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 194 pp.

Abstract Between April 1987 and March 1990 the ecotypic response
and habitat use of translocated woodland caribou were studied in
northern Idaho and southern British Columbia. Two populations,
each representing an ecotype of woodland caribou, were used as
sources for the reintroduction effort. Anahim Lake caribou
(woodland ecotype) were captured in west- central British
Columbia. Revelstoke caribou (mountain type) were captured in
southeastern British Columbia. Over the first two years, 48

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 40

Appendix I Summary of Reports Resulting From Woodland Caribou
Research Performed or Funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Ecology Research Center

radio- collared caribou were released into the southern Selkirk
Mountains, including 26 Anahim and 22 Revelstoke animals. A total
of 962 relocations were recorded, 443 of which were sampled for
habitat characteristics. Significantly more Revelstoke caribou
emigrated from the release area and joined resident caribou herds
in southern British Columbia, while Anahim caribou incurred
significantly greater mortality. These differences were most
apparent during the first year after release. Habitat use patterns
revealed important interactions between the two translocated
populations and the nearest resident (Stagleap, mountain ecotype)
caribou herd. The two most important influences affecting the
response of the caribou appeared to be their traditional habitat
use patterns acquired from their native herds and the habitat use
patterns learned, or assimilated, from other caribou after
release. The late winter period showed the greatest difference
between the caribou ecotypes. Anahim caribou used mature, densely
forested areas on south- facing slopes, while the late winter
habitat use of Revelstoke and Stagleap- area caribou showed no
distinct pattern. There were also differences specific to the
caribou populations during the other seasons. Summer habitat use
patterns suggest that differences exist between the release area
in northern Idaho and the area occupied by the resident Stagleap
herd. Differences in habitat use between years of study indicated
that some random searching behavior occurred for several months
following release and that the translocated caribou could adjust
certain habitat use patterns in response to being placed in
unfamiliar territory. All seasons revealed some similarities in
habitat use between the caribou populations, indicating universal
habitat needs of the woodland subspecies. The taxonomic and
evolutionary status of mountain caribou are discussed. Finally,
the implications of this studies' findings for translocation
efforts conducted on other species and recommendations for the
continued management of the Selkirk Mountains caribou are
presented.

Rominger, E. M., and J. L. Oldemeyer. 1991. Arboreal Lichen on
Windthrown Trees: A Seasonal Forage Resource for Woodland Caribou,
Selkirk Mountains, British Columbia. Proceedings of the 4th North
American Caribou Workshop, Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife
Division: 475- 480.

Abstract Arboreal lichen, particularly fruticose beard lichens,
are important early- winter forages in the high snowpack
ecosystems of western North America. As snow depth increase in the
Selkirk Mountains of northern

GAO/RCED-99-102 Caribou Recovery Program Page 41

*** End of document. ***