I want to know the answer to the following question:
Who covers the cost of additional efforts if the ITP holder's efforts fall short?
All the background I'm provided with is that "The "No Surprises" policy may be the most controversial of the recent reforms of the law, because once an Incidental Take Permit is granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) loses much ability to further protect a species if the mitigation measures by the landowner prove insufficient.". Is that enough to answer the question?
Answer: no