a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2006 ENDANGERED 

SPECIES

Many Factors Affect 

the Length of Time to 

Recover Select 

Species

GAO-06-730
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2006

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Many Factors Affect the Length of 

Highlights of GAO-06-730, a report to Time to Recover Select Species 

congressional requesters 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (the services) are

responsible for administration and 

implementation of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973. The act

generally requires the services to 

develop recovery plans for

endangered and threatened

species—species facing extinction 

or likely to face extinction,

respectively. Recovery plans 

identify threats to the species’ 

survival and the actions needed to

mitigate those threats. 

Proposed amendments to the act 

are under consideration and GAO 

was asked to provide information

to facilitate this effort. In April 

2006, GAO issued a report 

providing high-level information on 

the extent to which recovery plans

contain estimates of when species 

are expected to be recovered,

among other things. This follow-on 

report provides more detailed 

information on the factors that

affect species recovery and the

importance of recovery plans in 

recovery efforts. For 31 species—

selected because they were nearing 

recovery, or had significant 

attention devoted to them and thus 

would be expected to be making

progress towards recovery—GAO

(1) identifies factors affecting the 

length of time to recover the 

species and (2) describes the role 

recovery plans have played in

recovering these species. The

Department of the Interior agreed

with the facts presented in this 

report. The Department of 

Commerce declined to comment. 

Many factors affect the length of time it takes to recover the 31 species GAO 

reviewed. Specifically, 19 of these species have been recently delisted 

(removed from the list of endangered and threatened species) or are likely to

be delisted within the next 25 years either because (1) they faced a primary 

threat that has been or is being mitigated; (2) they were found to be more 

prevalent than biologists thought at the time they were listed and/or habitats 

have been secured for the species; or (3) they are expected to respond 

relatively quickly to recovery efforts because, for example, they reproduce 

quickly in the presence of good habitat. The remaining 12 species are much 

farther away from being delisted, and for some, recovery is uncertain. Some 

of these species are not expected to recover for many decades because they 

respond relatively slowly to recovery efforts, for example, because they 

reproduce slowly. Recovery for the remaining species is uncertain either 

because their habitat is difficult to protect, or because not enough is known 

about the threats facing the species or how to mitigate those threats. 

Recovery plans have played an important role in the recovery efforts of 

nearly all of the species GAO reviewed by identifying many of the actions the 

services’ biologists deemed most important to the species’ recovery. The

services’ biologists report that these actions have contributed, at least in 

part, to the progress made in recovering these species. For example, 

recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker is dependent on having sufficient 

habitat—the species nests in cavities that they peck out of old pine trees, but 

logging largely eliminated these trees from the woodpecker’s range. The 

recovery plan identifies measures to protect the habitat, including land 

acquisition and conservation agreements with landowners, as well as steps 

to provide artificial nest boxes until pines mature enough to provide natural 

habitat for the birds. The services’ biologists told us that these actions have

significantly improved this species’ prospects for recovery. However, for 

about one-half of the species GAO reviewed, actions beyond those in the 

recovery plans also played an important role in progress toward the species’ 

recovery. For example, the banning of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972—a 

year before the Endangered Species Act was enacted—has been critical to 

recovery of the bald eagle. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-730.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Certain 

Threatened and Endangered Species 7

Recovery Plans Play an Important Role in Recovering Certain 

Threatened and Endangered Species 19

Agency Comments 24

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 27

Appendix II: Information on 31 Select Species 31

Mammals 32

Birds 44

Fishes 50

Snails 57

Insects 58

Crustaceans 59

Plants 61

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior 72

Tables Table 1: Species Facing a Primary Threat That Has Been, or Is 

Being, Mitigated 9

Table 2: Species More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or 

Having Habitat Protections 11

Table 3: Species Expected to Respond Relatively Quickly to 

Extensive Recovery Efforts 12

Table 4: Species Expected to Recover but That Respond Relatively 

Slowly to Recovery Efforts 15

Table 5: Species for Which Essential Habitat Is Not Protected 17

Table 6: Species for Which Key Information Is Lacking 18

Table 7: Species Whose Recovery Plans Have Played a Primary 

Role in the Species’ Progress toward Recovery 21

Table 8: Species Whose Recovery Has Been Aided by Both 

Recovery Plans and Other Factors 23

Table 9: Selection Criteria for Species Included in Our 

Nonprobability Sample 29
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane

DPS distinct population segments 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 6, 2006 Letr

Congressional Requesters

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing extinction 

(endangered species) or likely to face extinction in the foreseeable future 

(threatened species), and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The act 

has long been a lightning rod for political debate about the extent to which 

the nation’s natural resources should be protected, and how best to protect 

them. Proponents of the act, and what it seeks to accomplish, believe that it 

is important to preserve the unique genetic characteristics of each species 

as a practical response to the impact that humans are having on the earth, 

and may also believe there is a moral obligation to do so. Some critics of 

the act deemphasize the importance of preserving every individual species 

and argue that doing so, in many cases, is too costly—especially when 

implementation of the act results in restricting uses of public and private 

land and resources. Others are critical of the veracity of the data used to 

make decisions under the act. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as “the services,” are the federal 

agencies responsible for administration and implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act. FWS has primary responsibility for fresh water 

and land species, while NMFS has primary responsibility for anadromous 

fish and most marine species. The Endangered Species Act outlines criteria 

that the services must apply to determine whether a species warrants the 

protection of the act, and the process to follow to place the species on the 

list of threatened and endangered species. The act also generally requires 

the services to develop recovery plans for the conservation and survival of 

listed species.1

 

While the act has many provisions that could be evaluated, one of the most 

important measures of its success is the number of species that have 

“recovered,” or improved to the point that they no longer need the act’s 

protection. Since the act’s inception in 1973, about 1,300 domestic species 

have been placed on the list of threatened and endangered species, but only

1

A recovery plan is not required if the Secretaries of Commerce or the Interior find that such 

a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. 
Page 2 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

a few have been removed (delisted).2 Supporters of the act claim it is an 

indication of success that only nine species protected by the act have 

become extinct. Critics, on the other hand, claim it is an indication of 

failure that only 17 species protected by the act have recovered. 

Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are under 

consideration, and you asked us to provide information on recovery plans 

and progress made on their implementation to facilitate this effort. In an 

April 2006 report, we provided high-level information on 107 randomly 

selected recovery plans covering about 200 species.3

 We reported on the 

extent to which these plans contained estimates of when a species is 

expected to have recovered, among other things. In this report, for a 

nonprobability sample of 31 species, we provide a more in-depth review of 

the efforts undertaken to recover species. We selected these species 

because they are nearing recovery or had significant attention devoted to 

them and, thus, would be expected to be making progress towards 

recovery. For these 31 species, we (1) identify factors affecting the length 

of time to recover the species and (2) describe the role that recovery plans 

have played in recovering these species.

FWS is responsible for 28 of the 31 species we reviewed. NMFS is 

responsible for the remaining three species—the northern right whale and 

two distinct population segments (DPS) of the Steller sea lion.4

 Our 

assessment of the recovery efforts and description of the role of recovery 

plans in those efforts is based primarily on species’ recovery plans, Federal 

Register notices associated with the species, and information provided by 

biologists at the services that are responsible for recovering the species we 

reviewed. We obtained, from FWS and NMFS biologists, estimated time 

frames for delisting many of the species we reviewed. It is important to 

note that these estimates were based on the assumption that needed 

actions would take place, even though funding may not be available to 

conduct these actions, or the actions may be out of the services’ control. 

Consequently, the estimates provided should be considered best-case 

2

Both domestic and foreign species are listed under the Endangered Species Act; foreign 

species are those with current and historic ranges that occur entirely under the jurisdiction 

of other countries. 

3

GAO, Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are Largely 

Unknown, GAO-06-463R (Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2006). 

4

A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a species for purposes of 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. See 61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996). 
Page 3 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

scenarios. Salmon, steelhead, and the desert tortoise were excluded from 

our analyses because we have issued comprehensive reports on these 

species.5

 A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is 

presented in appendix I. Information on each of the species we reviewed is 

presented in appendix II. We performed our work between September 2005 

and August 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

Results in Brief Many factors affect the length of time it will take to recover the 31 species 

we reviewed, and some may not be recovered at all. These factors range 

from the successful removal of the primary threat faced by a species, to 

difficulty protecting a species’ habitat or difficulty understanding what 

threats a species is facing. The length of time it has taken, or is expected to 

take, to recover these species, ranges from less than a decade to possibly 

more than a century; specifically: 

• Nineteen of the thirty-one species have been recently delisted, or are 

likely to be delisted, within the next 25 years. Each will likely spend less 

than 50 years on the endangered species list. Eight of these species 

faced a primary threat that has been or is being mitigated. Six species 

are more prevalent than biologists thought at the time they were listed, 

and/or FWS has been effective in protecting their habitats. The other 

five species are the beneficiaries of recovery efforts involving a wide 

range of stakeholders and significant resources, and are expected to 

respond relatively quickly to these efforts.

• The remaining 12 of the 31 species we reviewed are much farther away 

from being delisted and could spend more than 50 years on the 

endangered species list; for some, recovery is uncertain. The services’ 

biologists believe that 4 of these 12 species will eventually recover, but 

not for many decades, because the species are slow to respond to 

recovery efforts—for example, because they reproduce slowly or 

depend on habitat that takes a long time to develop. FWS is having 

difficulty recovering the remaining eight species: five because they 

cannot secure needed habitat, and three because they do not know 

5

See GAO, Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for 

the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program, GAO-03-23 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2002) 

and GAO, Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery 

Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions, GAO-02-612 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2002).
Page 4 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

enough about the threats facing the species or how to mitigate these 

threats. FWS cannot predict whether or when a successful recovery of 

these eight species will be possible.

For all but one of the species we reviewed, recovery plans played an 

important role in recovery efforts by identifying many of the actions that 

the services’ biologists deem most important to the recovery of the species. 

Although not all of these species are nearing recovery, the services’ 

biologists report that the success that these species have had can be 

attributed, at least in part, to actions in the species’ recovery plans. For 

example, recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker depends on having 

sufficient habitat—the species nests in cavities that are pecked out of old 

pine trees, which logging largely eliminated from the woodpecker’s range. 

The recovery plan identifies measures to protect woodpecker habitat, 

including conservation agreements with private landowners, as well as 

steps to provide artificial nest boxes until pines mature enough to provide 

natural habitat for the birds. The services’ biologists told us that these 

actions have significantly improved this species’ prospects for recovery. 

However, for about one-half of the species we reviewed, the services’ 

biologists also identified actions important to the recovery of the species 

that were beyond those included in the species’ recovery plans. For 

example, the banning of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 

(DDT) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 has been critical to 

recovery of the bald eagle, but was not included in its recovery plan. One of 

the species we reviewed, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf—a small flowering 

plant found in North Carolina and South Carolina—does not have a 

recovery plan because, with new populations of the species repeatedly 

being found, information about the species is changing rapidly. The species 

may be delisted without a recovery plan.

We provided the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Department 

of Commerce (Commerce) with a draft of this report for review and 

comment. The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the 

information presented in the report (see app. III). Commerce declined to 

provide an overall assessment of the draft because the report does not 

contain recommendations. 

Background The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is to conserve 

threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems upon which they 

depend. The act defines conservation as the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species so that they no longer need the protective measures 
Page 5 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

afforded by the act. An endangered species is a species facing extinction 

throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range; threatened species are 

those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The act 

requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish, in the Federal Register, a 

list of species determined to be threatened or endangered. Included in the 

definition of species are subspecies of animals and plants, and DPSs of 

vertebrate species. 

The act generally requires the services to develop recovery plans for the 

conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species, unless the 

services determine that a plan will not promote their conservation. The act 

directs the services, to the maximum extent practicable, to incorporate in 

each recovery plan (1) a description of site-specific management actions 

necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the 

species; (2) objective, measurable criteria that will result in a 

determination that the species can be removed from the list of threatened 

and endangered species (i.e., delisted); and (3) estimates of the time and 

cost required to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal.

The services develop and implement recovery plans, among other actions, 

to reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its long-term 

survival. To do this, recovery plans aim to identify threats to the species’ 

survival and the actions needed to mitigate those threats. A recovery plan 

may include a variety of methods and procedures to recover listed species, 

such as habitat acquisition and restoration to prevent extinction or further 

decline, and other on-the-ground activities for managing and monitoring 

endangered and threatened species. The services’ officials also told us that 

recovery plans are important for communicating needed actions to other 

federal agencies, state and local agencies, researchers, industry, private 

landowners, and others, because the services often depend on other 

entities to implement recovery actions. For example, in many cases, FWS 

does not have jurisdiction to implement recovery actions on lands 

occupied by endangered species, which is important because loss of 

habitat is often the principal cause of species’ declines. Recovery plans can 

take years or decades to fully implement, depending on the needs of the 

species covered by the plan. As of May 2006, the services had approved 580 

recovery plans covering about 1,080 species (or about 83 percent) of the 

1,300 domestic species protected by the act. 
Page 6 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Once a species recovers, it can be delisted.6 To determine that a species is 

recovered and ready to be delisted, the services follow a process similar to 

that used to list a species—they propose delisting a species in the Federal 

Register and seek public comment on the action before they finalize the 

delisting. The act requires the services to use the same criteria to delist 

species that are used to list species. Specifically, to delist a species, the 

services must determine that the species is no longer threatened or 

endangered based on an assessment of five factors: (1) whether there is a 

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range; (2) whether the species is subject to 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) whether disease or predation is a factor; (4) whether existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate; and (5) whether other natural and 

manmade factors are affecting the species’ continued existence. 

Besides delisting species because they have recovered, species can also be 

delisted if they are found to be extinct, or if the original data used to list the 

species is found to be in error. For example, if additional analysis finds the 

species is not unique but rather a member of a more prevalent species, its 

listing becomes unwarranted. As of May 2006, FWS reports that a total of 41 

species have been removed from the list of threatened and endangered 

species—9 species because they have been declared extinct, 15 species 

because original data used to list the species was in error, and 17 species as 

a result of recovery efforts.7

In addition, the act requires that the services report biennially to certain 

congressional committees on efforts to develop and implement recovery 

plans. The services implement this requirement through separate biennial 

reports to Congress. FWS’s reports satisfy the act’s reporting requirement 

by including a statistic called “recovery achieved.” The recovery achieved 

statistic is meant to estimate the extent to which the recovery objectives 

for each species have been achieved and reflects the species’ overall 

progress towards recovery; it is not the proportion of discrete actions in 

the recovery plan that has been completed. It is expressed as a percentage 

range—0 to 25 percent, 26 to 50 percent, 51 to 75 percent, or 76 to 100 

6

A species may also be downlisted from endangered to threatened as a result of recovery 

efforts. The services must announce downlisting proposals in the Federal Register to solicit 

public comments on the action. 

7

FWS reports that 2 of the 17 species delisted due to recovery were delisted because of a 

combination of recovery efforts and data error.
Page 7 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

percent. The FWS report includes this statistic for species under FWS’s 

jurisdiction, as well as for those managed jointly with NMFS. NMFS’s 

biennial reports to Congress do not include a recovery achieved statistic, 

but rather a narrative description of efforts to implement recovery plans. 

Additionally, the act requires FWS to submit an annual report to Congress 

on federal expenditures for the conservation of all endangered or 

threatened species, as well as expenditures by states receiving federal 

financial assistance for such conservation activities. 

Many Factors Affect 

the Length of Time to 

Recover Certain 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Many factors are responsible for the varying length of time it will take to 

recover the 31 species we reviewed. The services’ biologists report that 19 

of these species are likely to be delisted within the next 25 years because 

(1) the primary threats faced by the species have been or are being 

mitigated; (2) the species are more prevalent than thought at the time they 

were listed and/or habitat has been secured for the species; or (3) they are 

the beneficiaries of extensive recovery efforts and are expected to respond 

relatively quickly to those efforts. In contrast, the remaining 12 species are 

far from recovery because (1) they respond slowly to recovery actions; (2) 

the services have not been successful in protecting essential habitat; or (3) 

there are gaps in knowledge about the threats challenging their survival, or 

how to mitigate these threats. 

Factors Affecting the 

Species We Reviewed That 

Are Delisted or Likely to Be 

Delisted within the Next 25 

Years 

Nineteen of the thirty-one species we reviewed have already been delisted, 

or are likely to be recovered and delisted within the next 25 years. The 

services’ biologists expect that many will be delisted within the next 10 

years, and all of these species will likely spend less than 50 years on the 

endangered species list. Eight of these species are recovered, or are 

nearing recovery, and will likely be delisted in 10 years because they faced 

primary threats that have been or are being mitigated. Six of the species are 

recovered, or are nearing recovery, and most will likely be delisted within 

the next 10 years because they are more prevalent than thought at the time 

they were listed, and/or key habitat is being protected. The remaining 5 of 

the 19 species are expected to recover and be delisted within 25 years, 

because they are expected to respond relatively quickly to recovery efforts 

involving significant resources and a wide range of stakeholders. 

Primary Threats Have Been, or 

Are Being, Mitigated for Some 

Species

Eight of the species we reviewed are recovered, or are nearing recovery, 

because the primary threats facing the species have been, or are being, 

mitigated. These species are likely to be delisted within the next 10 years. 
Page 8 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

The bald eagle is one example. The primary threat to the eagle’s survival 

was the widespread use of DDT, an insecticide that caused thin egg shells 

and reproductive failure. Thus, although there were other steps that needed 

to be taken (primarily addressing loss of important habitat), the banning of 

DDT in 1972 was critical to achieving the bald eagle’s recovery. FWS 

reports that the eagle is recovered and has recently proposed delisting the 

species. Another example is the Magazine Mountain shagreen—a land snail 

found only on the north side of Magazine Mountain in Arkansas. The 

primary threat to this species was human use of its habitat or areas close to 

its habitat. Specifically, the Department of Defense considered using 

Magazine Mountain for military exercises, and the state of Arkansas 

proposed building a visitor’s center and related facilities on the summit of 

the mountain—the highest peak in the state. After the snail was listed, 

however, the Department of Defense withdrew its plans for military 

exercises in the area, and the visitor’s center and associated facilities were 

designed and built so that potential impacts from construction and 

operation have been mitigated. FWS biologists told us that the snail’s 

population is stable, but that a proposed 3-year study to gather additional 

biological information about the species needs to be completed before the 

species can be proposed for delisting. Table 1 summarizes some key details 

about the eight species.
Page 9 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Table 1: Species Facing a Primary Threat That Has Been, or Is Being, Mitigated

Sources: FWS and NMFS. 

a

Target time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery actions are taken. However, many 

factors, including availability of funding, cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and 

responsiveness of the species, may render these time frames unattainable or obsolete. We present 

estimates in 5-year increments.

b

Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species Act was enacted, were 

originally listed under provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and “grandfathered” onto the list of threatened and 

endangered species under the 1973 act. 

c

The bald eagle was first listed in 1967, but the listing only applied to bald eagles in southern states. 

FWS later determined that there was no morphological or geographical basis to distinguish northern 

and southern eagles and extended protection to all bald eagles in the 48 conterminous states in 1978. 

d

A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes of listing, is treated as a species 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Species name

Year species was listed and 

target delisting time framea, b Primary threat that has been, or is being, mitigated 

Bald eagle Listed: 1967/1978c

Proposed for delisting: 1999 and 

2006

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010 

The insecticide DDT causes reproductive failure in bald eagles. This threat 

was mitigated when the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 

1972. Habitat protections and guidance to avoid disturbing nesting sites 

have also helped. FWS proposed delisting the eagle in 1999; however, 

action was delayed because of legal concerns. FWS reinitiated the process 

to delist the bald eagle in February 2006.

Borax Lake chub 

(fish)

Listed: 1980

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015

The primary threats were geothermal development, and shoreline alteration 

due to grazing. Legislation prevented geothermal development and land 

acquisition is protecting shoreline. 

Columbian whitetailed deer—Douglas 

County DPSd

Listed: 1967 

Delisted: 2003 

Habitat protection via land acquisition and hunting restrictions were critical 

to the deer’s recovery and subsequent delisting in July 2003. 

Gray wolf—western 

Great Lakes recovery 

population

Listed: 1967

Proposed for delisting: 2006

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010

Human predation was the primary threat facing the gray wolf; for instance, 

wolves were frequently killed by farmers to protect their livestock from 

predation. Programs that removed livestock-killing wolves, and 

compensated farmers who lost livestock to wolves, helped reduce this 

practice. Delisting has been delayed due to legal questions about how to 

delist this population, since all gray wolves are currently listed as a single 

entity rather than as distinct population segments. 

Papery whitlowwort—central Florida 

subspecies (plant)

Listed: 1987

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010

Habitat has been protected and restored through land acquisition and 

management activities. 

Steller sea lion—

eastern DPSd

Listed: 1990

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010

The killing of Steller sea lions by humans (for example, to protect fishing 

gear or to reduce population numbers) was a major threat that has been 

prohibited. 

Magazine Mountain 

shagreen (land snail)

Listed: 1989

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2010

Two planned actions that could have affected the species’ habitat were 

withdrawn or mitigated. 

Virginia round-leaf 

birch (tree)

Listed: 1978

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015

Helping propagation of seedlings in the wild and protecting them until they 

could withstand herbivory helped ensure the species’ survival. Additionally, 

distributing seedlings to the public helped reduce illegal collecting. 
Page 10 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Almost all of the eight species nearing recovery due to mitigation of a 

primary threat were included in the sample of species we reviewed 

because, among other reasons, in FWS’s fiscal year 2001–2002 recovery 

report to Congres, these species were reported to have achieved 76 to 100 

percent of their recovery. The one exception is the Steller sea lion, which 

we selected because there was a relatively high level of federal and state 

expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003. (NMFS does 

not report a recovery achieved statistic for species for which it is 

responsible.)

Some Species Are More 

Prevalent Than Initially Thought 

and/or the Species’ Habitat Is 

Being Protected 

Six of the species we reviewed have recovered, or are nearing recovery, 

because they are more prevalent than thought when listed, and/or FWS has 

been successful in protecting important habitat. The services’ biologists 

expect that all but one of these species will be delisted within the next 10 

years. After a species is listed, it typically receives more attention; 

sometimes this attention comes in the form of additional funding to survey 

for the species, which can lead to finding additional individuals or 

populations. The Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly is an example of a 

species where the discovery of additional populations, coupled with 

management actions to protect those populations, could result in the 

species being delisted within the next 6 years. When the butterfly was listed 

in 1991, there were only two known colonies and a few individual 

butterflies that had been located at two other sites. However, since that 

time, monitoring has uncovered nine additional colonies. Habitat 

protections, such as prohibitions on collecting all types of butterflies in key 

habitat areas, have also helped this species. FWS biologists believe that the 

species is nearing recovery but, as some of the colonies were only 

discovered between 4 and 5 years ago, additional monitoring is needed. The 

recovery plan calls for population levels to have remained stable for 10 

years before the species is considered recovered. 

Besides finding additional populations, sometimes a species is determined 

to be more abundant than originally thought because of changes to how the 

species is taxonomically classified. For example, the Truckee barberry, a 

small evergreen shrub found in California, was delisted after it was 

reclassified and included as part of a more common species that is not 

threatened or endangered. Table 2 summarizes some key details for these 

six species.
Page 11 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Table 2: Species More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or Having Habitat Protections

Source: FWS. 

a

Target time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery actions are taken. However, many 

factors, including availability of funding, cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and 

responsiveness of the species, may render these time frames unattainable or obsolete. We present 

estimates in 5-year increments.

As with the species in table 1, all of the six species that are nearing 

recovery because they are more prevalent (and/or because their habitat has 

been protected) were included in our sample because they were reported 

to have 76 to 100 percent of their recovery achieved in FWS’s fiscal year 

2001-2002 recovery report to Congress. 

Some Species Are Likely to 

Respond Quickly to Recovery 

Efforts 

Five of the species we reviewed are likely to be recovered within the next 

25 years, because they are expected to respond relatively quickly to 

focused recovery efforts with many stakeholders and significant resources. 

For example, the Rio Grande silvery minnow, a fish that rarely exceeds 4 

inches, was historically found in the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers. 

However, habitat degradation restricted the fish to 5 percent of its historic 

range, all in the Rio Grande. To recover the minnow and other endangered 

species in the area (including the southwestern willow flycatcher, which is 

Species name 

Year species was listed and 

target delisting time framea Prevalence and habitat protection factors

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf 

(plant)

Listed: 1989

Anticipated to be delisted: by 

2015

Additional populations were discovered, but some habitat still needs 

protection. 

Eggert’s sunflower (plant) Listed: 1997 

Delisted: 2005

Additional populations were discovered, and FWS secured conservation 

agreements from public and private landowners to protect and restore 

habitat. Protective actions include burning, mowing, or thinning plants that 

compete with the species. 

Johnston’s frankenia 

(plant)

Listed: 1984

Proposed for delisting: 2003

Anticipated to be delisted: 

2006

Landowners initially resisted requests to survey for the species but 

eventually reconsidered; additional populations were subsequently 

discovered. Conservation agreements with private landowners now protect 

the species’ habitat.

Truckee barberry (plant) Listed: 1979

Delisted: 2003

At the time of listing, it was not clear how the Truckee barberry was related to 

other species. Taxonomic analyses later determined that this species is the 

same as another much more prevalent species.

Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus 

Listed: 1979

Anticipated to be delisted: by 

2025

The species is more prevalent than originally thought, but still needs habitat 

protections. 

Uncompahgre fritillary 

butterfly

Listed: 1991

Anticipated to be delisted: by 

2015

Additional populations were discovered, and populations on federal land 

have been protected by eliminating species collection and reducing access 

to species habitat.
Page 12 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

also reviewed in this report), the river is being restored to a more natural 

state. The restoration will transform the deeply channeled river with high 

banks that isolate the river from the surrounding floodplain to a more 

gently flowing river with broader, lower banks that will provide eddies and 

slack water for juvenile minnows. To achieve this, a myriad of property 

owners and water-rights interests must be coordinated. Specifically, the 

Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program—a 

broad coalition of federal, tribal, and local governments; property owners; 

and others—is leading efforts to restore the river. Efforts are underway to 

physically manipulate the river banks, and the Bureau of Reclamation and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are manipulating the river’s flow to 

create floods that reconnect the river with the surrounding floodplain. FWS 

is introducing captively-bred minnows to increase the population size. FWS 

biologists report that manipulating the river’s flow regime is an effective 

way to create habitat, and that minnow populations increase rapidly when 

provided with good habitat. Table 3 summarizes some key details about the 

minnow and four other species that are responding quickly, or expected to 

respond quickly, to recovery actions. 

Table 3: Species Expected to Respond Relatively Quickly to Extensive Recovery Efforts

Species name

Year species was listed and target 

delisting time framea,b Stakeholder involvement and resource investment

Colorado pikeminnow (fish) Listed: 1967

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2015 

 

This extensive recovery program involves significant resources 

(about $200 million since 1989 on the pikeminnow and other 

species) and a large number of partners—including federal and 

state agencies, tribes, and private sector entities. Key actions 

include providing water to ensure adequate flows, and 

controlling introductions of nonnative recreational fish species 

that compete with and prey on the pikeminnow. The effort to 

recover the pikeminnow is part of a larger effort that includes 

three other fish species including the razorback sucker, which is 

also profiled in this report. Because the species breeds annually, 

biologists believe that successful implementation of recovery 

actions would result in the species recovering relatively quickly. 
Page 13 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Sources: FWS and NMFS. 

a

Target time frames for delisting assume that remaining recovery actions are taken. However, many 

factors, including availability of funding, cooperation with partners, acquisition of land, and 

responsiveness of the species, may render these time frames unattainable or obsolete. We present 

estimates in 5-year increments.

b

Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species Act was enacted, were 

originally listed under provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and “grandfathered” onto the list of threatened and 

endangered species under the 1973 act.

c

A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for the purposes of listing under the Endangered 

Species Act, is treated as a species.

Razorback sucker (fish) Listed: 1991

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2025

This extensive recovery program involves significant resources 

(about $200 million since 1989 on the razorback sucker and 

other species) and a large number of partners—including federal 

and state agencies, tribes, and private entities. Key actions 

include land acquisition of floodplain habitat and controlling 

introductions of nonnative recreational fish species that compete 

with and prey on the sucker. The effort to recover the sucker is 

part of a larger effort focused on it and three other fish, including 

the Colorado pikeminnow, which is also profiled in this report. 

Because the species breeds annually, biologists believe that 

successful implementation of recovery actions would result in 

the species recovering relatively quickly. 

Rio Grande silvery minnow Listed: 1994

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2030

This extensive recovery program involves significant resources 

(about $45 million since 2001) and a large number of partners—

including state and local agencies, and private landowners. Key 

actions include creating needed habitat and introducing 

captively-bred minnows. Habitat can be created relatively quickly 

and populations can increase rapidly in the presence of good 

habitat. 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher (bird)

Listed: 1995

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2025

A large number of stakeholders were involved in developing the 

recovery plan for the species, and this has resulted in wide 

support for the species. The species’ biology also helps with 

recovery, as it uses a variety of habitats that are easy to 

establish and become available to the species quickly. The 

species also reproduces annually. About $40 million has been 

spent since 1995 developing the recovery plan and 

implementing recovery actions. 

Steller sea lion—western 

DPSc

Listed: 1990

Anticipated to be delisted: by 2030

This is an extensive recovery program involving significant 

resource investment (over $167 million since 1992, including 

efforts to recover the eastern DPS). Actions taken include 

extensive research, closures of fishery areas, and reductions in 

disturbances at breeding sites. Although uncertainty exists 

about the cause of both the decline and increase in sea lion 

populations, the annual growth rate of the western DPS reached 

target levels of 3 percent in 2000 and NMFS biologists believe 

this trend will continue.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Species name

Year species was listed and target 

delisting time framea,b Stakeholder involvement and resource investment
Page 14 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

In contrast to the species in tables 1 and 2, these species were included in 

our sample primarily because there was a relatively high level of federal 

and state expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003. None 

of the four for which FWS is responsible were reported to have 76 to 100 

percent of their recovery achieved in FWS’s fiscal year 2001–2002 recovery 

report to Congress.

Factors Affecting the 

Species We Reviewed That 

Are Likely Far from 

Recovery 

The recovery efforts for 12 of the 31 species we reviewed are far from 

complete, and the outcome for some is uncertain. These species are likely 

to spend at least 50 years on the endangered species list, some significantly 

longer than that. The services’ biologists believe that four of these species 

will likely recover, but not for many decades—they respond slowly to 

recovery efforts. An additional five species are far from recovery because 

FWS is unable to protect habitat necessary for the species’ recovery. For 

the three remaining species, not enough is known about the threats they 

face, or how to mitigate those threats, to predict whether or when a 

successful recovery is possible. 

Some Species Respond Slowly to 

Recovery Efforts 

For four species we reviewed, recovery efforts are far from complete 

because the species respond slowly to these efforts. For example, the 

species may have a relatively low reproductive rate; alternatively, it may 

depend on habitat that takes a long time to develop to the point that it is 

useful to the species. Although the services’ biologists are optimistic that 

these four species will eventually recover, they do not believe this will 

occur in the foreseeable future. For example, NMFS biologists expect the 

northern right whale to recover eventually, but not for many decades. This 

whale population was brought to extremely low levels by commercial 

whaling. Although an international agreement has protected the northern 

right whale from commercial whaling worldwide since 1935, populations 

remain extremely depleted—the current population estimate is about 300 

individuals. The main threat the whale still faces is human-caused mortality 

by fishing gear entanglement and collisions with ships. NMFS biologists 

believe the right whale has a high potential for recovery because the threats 

to the species are known and can be addressed—actions are being 

implemented that have reduced mortality associated with fishing gear and 

ships. However, NMFS biologists also believe it will take a long time for the 

whale to recover because of its very low population and slow reproduction. 

Table 4 summarizes some key details for these four species.
Page 15 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Table 4: Species Expected to Recover but That Respond Relatively Slowly to Recovery Efforts

Sources: FWS and NMFS. 

a

Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species Act was enacted, were 

originally listed under provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and “grandfathered” onto the list of threatened and 

endangered species under the 1973 act. 

These four species were included in our sample primarily because of the 

relatively high level of federal and state expenditures on the species as 

reported for fiscal year 2003. The two species for which FWS is responsible 

were reported as having between 0 and 50 percent of their recovery 

achieved in the 2001–2002 recovery report to Congress. 

Some Species’ Habitats Are 

Difficult to Protect 

Recovery efforts for five of the species we reviewed are far from complete 

because FWS is unable to protect the habitat necessary to recover these 

Species name

Year species was 

listeda Reason for relatively slow recovery 

Northern right whale (north 

Atlantic population)

Listed: 1970 This species lives up to 70 years and reproduces infrequently—once every 3 to 

5 years. Commercial whaling severely depleted the population (the current 

population is only about 300 individuals). Extensive efforts are being taken to 

reduce whale injuries and mortalities caused by fishing gear entanglement and 

ship strikes, but the species’ low reproductive rate and small population will 

require a long recovery period. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Listed: 1970 The species depends on habitat that was nearly eliminated and takes a long 

time to develop. It also has very selective nesting behavior. It pecks out cavities 

in old pine trees, and creating a suitable nest cavity can take a decade. 

However, much of the pine forests in the woodpeckers’ habitat have been 

logged and adversely affected by fire suppression and other activities. As a 

result, it will be decades before these forests develop to the point that they can 

be used by the species, and it could take more than 70 years for the species to 

be delisted. 

West Indian manatee 

(Florida population)

Listed: 1967 Significant efforts to reduce human-caused mortality (such as from collisions 

with boats) are having a positive effect, but manatees remain extremely 

vulnerable to mortality due to a lack of warm-water wintering sites. Manatees 

historically relied on warm water from natural springs, but these are becoming 

scarce. As a result, many manatees rely on industrial discharges such as 

cooling water discharges from power plants. However, the reliability of these 

sources is unpredictable and loss of even one site (such as for maintenance or 

an emergency) can cause hundreds of manatee deaths. The Florida manatee 

population is increasing slightly, but uncertainty over the availability of warmwater wintering sites, coupled with the manatee’s tendency to return to the 

same winter sites year after year, means the species’ recovery is still many 

decades away. 

Whooping crane Listed: 1967 Extensive efforts to breed the crane in captivity and reintroduce it into the wild 

have been relatively successful, but the species will take a long time to recover 

because the population size fell to a very small number; the species 

reproduces slowly; and it continues to face threats on its migration routes.
Page 16 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

species. For example, the recovery plan for the Florida panther calls for 

three viable, self-sustaining populations—which must each include at least 

240 panthers to maintain genetic diversity. However, as of 2005, there is 

currently only one population estimated at 76 panthers; its genetic diversity 

is being augmented by a closely related subspecies found in Texas. The 

habitat this small population currently relies on is at its carrying capacity 

and is declining by about one percent per year because of housing and 

citrus development. FWS biologists report that, although it is biologically 

feasible to recover the panther, they do not believe it is likely this will occur 

because of the lack of public support for expanding the current population 

and establishing additional populations—actions that rely on additional 

suitable habitat being available to the panther. The lack of public support 

stems largely from fears of the animal and predation on livestock and pets. 

The Socorro isopod, a one-fourth-inch long member of the crustacean 

family, is another example of FWS being unable to protect the habitat 

necessary to recover a species, but for a different reason than that of the 

Florida panther. The only wild population of isopods is found in New 

Mexico, and lives in the pipes of an abandoned bathhouse that was built to 

take advantage of the natural hot spring the species historically relied on. 

The bathhouse and the water rights to the spring that feeds the bathhouse 

are privately owned. The recovery plan for the isopod calls for an 

agreement with the property owner to protect the species—either an 

easement, lease, or outright purchase of the property. However, FWS 

biologists told us that the property owner has not consented to such an 

agreement, although he has taken some actions to protect the species, such 

as repairing a fence surrounding the bathhouse that helps protect it from 

vandals. However, without the property owner’s cooperation, FWS cannot 

secure the habitat essential to ensure the survival of the species and thus 

delist it. Table 5 summarizes some key details for these five species.
Page 17 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Table 5: Species for Which Essential Habitat Is Not Protected

Source: FWS. 

a

Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species Act was enacted, were 

originally listed under provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and “grandfathered” onto the list of threatened and 

endangered species under the 1973 act. 

The Florida panther and the black-footed ferret were included in our 

sample because there was a relatively high level of federal and state 

expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003, and each 

species had at least one full-time staff member dedicated to its recovery. 

The other three species—the Ash Meadows sunray, the papery whitlowwort, and the Socorro isopod—were included in our sample because FWS 

reported them as having between 76 and 100 percent of their recovery 

achieved in the fiscal year 2001–2002 recovery report to Congress; 

however, as discussed above, it is unclear when these species will be 

delisted. 

Key Information Is Lacking 

about the Threats Some Species 

Face

FWS cannot predict whether or when a successful recovery is possible for 

the remaining three species we reviewed because it does not know enough 

about the threats facing the species, or how to mitigate those threats. These 

three species could spend more than 50 years on the endangered species 

list. The Indiana bat is one example. This species has been found 

throughout much of the eastern United States. The bats winter in caves or 

mines, called hibernacula, that satisfy their highly specific need for cold 

Species name 

Year species was 

listeda Habitat protection needed

Ash Meadows sunray 

(plant)

Listed: 1985 The primary threat at the time of listing was development of its unique habitat—a 

desert wetland in Nevada. This threat was partially mitigated through land acquisition, 

but the area remains vulnerable to mineral extraction. 

Black-footed ferret Listed: 1967 Ferrets rely on prairie dog colonies for habitat and on prairie dogs for food. However, 

strong public opposition to prairie dogs prevents the establishment of sufficient prairie 

dog populations to support recovery of the ferret. In addition, disease threatens the 

prairie dogs and the ferret. 

Florida panther Listed: 1967 Development continues to reduce the size of already insufficient habitat for the 

panther, and there is public opposition to establishing additional populations in other 

locations.

Papery whitlow-wort—

Florida panhandle 

subspecies (plant)

Listed: 1987 The primary threat to the species is habitat loss through residential, industrial, and 

commercial development. Land management activities and habitat protections, 

including land acquisition, are needed. However, funds have not yet been available to 

fully implement recovery actions. 

Socorro isopod 

(crustacean) 

Listed: 1978 Water rights to the spring supporting the only wild population are privately owned. 
Page 18 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

(but not freezing) temperatures during hibernation. The fact that they 

hibernate in a relatively small number of caves suggests that very few caves 

meet their habitat requirements. FWS biologists originally thought that the 

only major threat to the bat was anthropomorphic changes to its 

hibernacula. For example, gates installed to control human access to caves 

have been documented as major causes of Indiana bat declines because 

they prevent bat access or do not allow proper air flow; human 

disturbances in caves with hibernating bats have also been found to 

adversely affect the species. Yet despite actions to protect the hibernacula 

and remove these threats, population levels have not rebounded, 

suggesting that the species faces additional threats when not hibernating. 

The additional threats are not well known because the species is difficult to 

study—it is nocturnal, widely dispersed during the summer, and roosts in 

trees with exfoliating bark. This latter point is problematic because 

climbing these trees (for example, to conduct studies on the species) could 

destroy the habitat. Table 6 summarizes some key details for these three 

species.

Table 6: Species for Which Key Information Is Lacking

Source: FWS. 

a

Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species Act was enacted, were 

originally listed under provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and “grandfathered” onto the list of threatened and 

endangered species under the 1973 act. 

We included the Ash Meadows gumplant and the Spring-loving centaury in 

our sample because they were reported to have 76 to 100 percent of their 

recovery achieved in the fiscal year 2001–2002 recovery report to Congress. 

However, FWS biologists believe that a recently identified threat to these 

two species may result in the recovery-achieved statistic for these species 

being lowered in the next recovery report to Congress. The third species—

the Indiana bat—was included in our sample because of the relatively high 

Species name Year species was listeda Key information gap

Ash Meadows gumplant 

(plant)

Listed: 1985 An invasive species may threaten the gumplant and FWS biologists do 

not know how to remove it from the gumplant’s habitat. 

Indiana bat Listed: 1967 Unknown threats to the bat are suspected during summer months. A 

revised recovery plan is being drafted that will include recovery actions 

to address this information gap. 

Spring-loving centaury (plant) Listed: 1985 An invasive species may threaten the centaury and FWS biologists do 

not know how to remove it from the centaury’s habitat. 
Page 19 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

level of federal and state expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal 

year 2003. 

Recovery Plans Play an 

Important Role in 

Recovering Certain 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

We found that recovery plans have played an important role in the recovery 

efforts of all but one of the 31 species we reviewed. More specifically, for 13 

of the species, biologists report that the recovery plan contains key actions 

needed to achieve progress in recovering the species. Although not all of 

these species are nearing recovery, the services’ biologists report that the 

success that these species have had can be attributed, in large part, to 

implementation of actions in the species’ recovery plans. For an additional 

17 species, biologists report that, although recovery plans have played an 

important role in the species’ progress toward recovery, events unrelated to 

the plan have also had a critical impact on recovery progress. In some 

cases, historic and legal events outside the purview of the recovery plan—

such as the banning of DDT, which set the stage for the bald eagle’s 

recovery—have been critical to the species recovery. For some species, the 

discovery of new populations has played an important role in their 

recovery, although monitoring for additional populations is often a 

recovery-plan activity. Finally, one species—the dwarf-flowered heartleaf—

does not have a recovery plan, and may not need one. FWS biologists 

report that information about this species is changing rapidly as new and 

larger populations are being identified. FWS has considered delisting this 

species, but some stakeholders raised concerns about development threats 

in the species’ habitat. The species’ status is currently undergoing a review, 

and it may be possible to delist it without having a recovery plan.8

 

Implementation of Recovery 

Plan Actions Has Been the 

Primary Driver in 

Recovering 13 Species

Thirteen of the species we reviewed are recovering, in large part due to the 

implementation of actions in the species’ recovery plans. Although not all 

of these species are nearing recovery, the success that these species have 

had is attributed primarily to the recovery actions identified in the species’ 

recovery plans. For example, the red-cockaded woodpecker, which is 

found in 11 states from Florida to Texas to Virginia, is expected to recover 

largely as a result of implementation of actions in its recovery plan. The 

species nests in old pine trees and, by creating and maintaining wounds in 

8

The act requires that the services conduct reviews of all the species protected by the act 

every 5 years to determine whether the species should be delisted, or whether the species’ 

status should change from endangered to threatened, or vice versa. 
Page 20 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

the tree that exude resin, exploits the ability of these pines to produce large 

amounts of resin. The resin creates an effective barrier against climbing 

snakes and prevents nest predation. The woodpecker requires large pine 

trees because it excavates a cavity within the heartwood (center) of the 

tree. The diameter of the heartwood must be large enough to contain the 

entire cavity—otherwise the woodpecker could be entrapped by the resin. 

The woodpecker requires pines at least 60 to 80 years old because the 

higher incidence of heartwood decay greatly facilitates cavity excavation. 

Excavation can take many years, and averages from 6 to 13 years 

depending on the type of tree being excavated. The species declined 

significantly because logging eliminated much of the woodpecker’s habitat 

of old-growth pine. FWS biologists report that, although the woodpecker 

was listed in 1970, not enough was known about the species’ biology to 

develop the recovery actions necessary to bring about the bird’s recovery 

until the mid 1990s. Three of the most significant efforts that have helped 

the woodpecker were in the plan—prescribed burns have helped develop 

suitable habitat, artificial nesting cavities have provided a stop-gap 

measure until existing pine trees mature, and translocation of birds to new 

locations with suitable habitat has expanded the population. The plan also 

identified measures to protect existing woodpecker habitat on private land, 

for example, through conservation agreements. Since the development and 

implementation of the recovery plan, woodpecker populations have been 

steadily increasing. Table 7 summarizes some key details for these 13 

species.
Page 21 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Table 7: Species Whose Recovery Plans Have Played a Primary Role in the Species’ Progress toward Recovery

Source: FWS. 

a

A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes of listing, is treated as a species 

under the Endangered Species Act.

Species name Role of plan in species recovery

Black-footed ferret A captive breeding program outlined in the recovery plan was essential to creating selfsustaining populations in the wild. 

Colorado pikeminnow Key actions in the recovery plan include restoring water flows and controlling the 

introduction of nonnative fish.

Columbian white-tailed deer—Douglas 

County DPSa

Key actions in the recovery plan include habitat protection (through land acquisition, 

easements, and other means) by federal, state, and local agencies; and monitoring 

conducted by the state to determine the status of the species. 

Florida panther Key actions in the recovery plan include introducing Texas mountain lions (a closely related 

subspecies) to keep the species from becoming dangerously inbred; collaring and 

monitoring to determine population health and status; and installing highway underpasses 

to reduce mortality. 

Indiana bat The recovery plan included various steps to protect hibernacula and reduce disturbances 

to hibernating bats. 

Papery whitlow-wort—central Florida 

subspecies (plant)

Land acquisition and restoration activities included in the recovery plan are helping recover 

this species. 

Papery whitlow-wort—Florida panhandle 

subspecies (plant)

Land acquisition and restoration activities included in the recovery plan, although still 

incomplete, have helped this species. 

Razorback sucker Key actions in the recovery plan include land acquisition to provide floodplain habitat and 

controlling the introduction of nonnative fish species. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker The most beneficial actions in the recovery plan have been prescribed burns to ensure 

suitable foraging habitat and prevent hardwood tree encroachment; relocation of some 

woodpeckers to areas with suitable habitat; and providing artificial nesting cavities until 

trees are mature enough to be used by the species. 

Rio Grande silvery minnow Key actions in the recovery plan include augmenting wild populations of minnows, restoring 

habitat, and purchasing water rights to help ensure adequate water flows. 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (bird) A large number of stakeholders collaborated on the recovery plan. This public support has 

been the most effective plan-related action to date. The plan is only 2 years old, and public 

support will be essential to implement the widespread habitat restoration and protection 

that is needed to recover the species. 

Truckee barberry (plant) Taxonomic research called for in the recovery plan determined that the Truckee barberry 

should be reclassified as part of a more prevalent species. 

West Indian manatee (Florida population) Key actions in the recovery plan include reducing mortality from boat collisions, fishing gear 

entanglement, and entrapment in navigation locks. 
Page 22 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Recovery for 17 Species is 

Driven by Both the 

Recovery Plan and Other 

Factors

For 17 of the species we reviewed, biologists report that, while recovery 

plans played important roles, events outside of the plans have also been 

critical to the species’ recovery efforts. In some cases, historic and legal 

events have been critical to a species’ recovery. For example, the whooping 

crane benefited from protections that occurred before endangered species 

legislation was in existence. In the early 1900s, it was recognized that the 

crane’s population was decreasing. The major cause of this decline was 

thought to be hunting and, as wetlands were drained and turned into 

farmland, habitat loss. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916 prohibited 

hunting of the crane (and most other migratory birds in the United States). 

The crane also benefited from the creation of two protected areas—one 

specifically to protect the crane, the other to protect another species that 

shared the crane’s habitat. In 1922, Canada created a national park to 

protect a small herd of bison and the crane was later found to summer 

there. In 1937, the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas was created to 

protect cranes that were currently wintering there. While these actions 

were critical to protecting the crane and its habitat, the population 

remained low and did not exceed 100 until the winter of 1983–84. 

Accordingly, the 1980 recovery plan set forth many additional recovery 

actions that have greatly helped the species, such as introducing captivelybred cranes into the wild. Perhaps the best-known of these recovery 

actions is the use of ultralight aircraft to teach cranes migration routes 

between summer and winter habitats. 

Similarly, the Borax Lake chub also benefited from several events not 

included in its recovery plan. The chub is a fish, typically less than 2 inches 

long, found in Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in arid southeastern 

Oregon. The lake is fed by several thermal springs that were vulnerable to 

geothermal development. The immediate threat was removed when the 

energy exploration company speculating in the area abandoned its plans to 

pursue development of a hydrogeothermal facility in the Borax Lake area. 

These actions were not part of the recovery plan but were critical to 

protecting the Borax Lake chub. They were supplemented by 

implementation of a key action called for in the recovery plan—purchasing 

the privately owned land surrounding the lake. 

For other species, the discovery of new populations has played an 

important role in their recovery. For example, Johnston’s frankenia, a small 

perennial shrub found in south Texas and an adjacent area in northeastern 

Mexico, was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1984. At the time 

of listing, there were only five known populations in Texas—all on 

privately-owned lands. However, many private lands had not been surveyed 
Page 23 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

for the species because of resistance from the landowners. A key action in 

the recovery plan was working with landowners to gain access to their 

lands to conduct monitoring. Once this was accomplished, the plant was 

found to be more prevalent than thought at the time of listing, and FWS 

proposed delisting the species in 2003. While the discovery of previously 

unknown populations is a fortunate event that cannot be prescribed by a 

recovery plan, monitoring and surveying to determine species’ abundance 

and distribution can be included in a recovery plan. Table 8 summarizes 

some key details for these 17 species.

Table 8: Species Whose Recovery Has Been Aided by Both Recovery Plans and Other Factors 

Species name 

Important recovery actions found in recovery 

plans

Events outside of recovery plans that have 

aided species’ recovery

Ash Meadows gumplant (plant) Securing land and water rights to protect habitat. Creation of a national wildlife refuge to protect 

essential habitat. 

Ash Meadows sunray (plant) Securing land and water rights to protect habitat. Creation of a national wildlife refuge to protect 

essential habitat. 

Bald eagle Habitat protection and enhancement of nesting 

areas, and management guidelines to limit 

disturbances around nests.

Banning of DDT in 1972.

Borax Lake chub (fish) Land acquisition around Borax Lake, and the 

Bureau of Land Management placing special 

management status on the area around the lake. 

Withdrawal of an energy exploration company’s 

plans to pursue development of a 

hydrogeothermal facility in the Borax Lake area. 

Eggert's sunflower (plant) Prescribed fires to improve habitat; research on 

genetics; and, for habitat, management plans and 

conservation agreements. 

Species was more prevalent than thought at the 

time of listing.

Gray wolf (western Great Lakes 

recovery population)

Strong enforcement of hunting prohibition, 

depredation control and compensation programs, 

and public education. 

Protections, due to listing the species, sharply 

curtailed hunting; state programs that protected 

the wolf also were important. 

Johnston's frankenia (plant) Getting private landowners’ cooperation to survey 

habitat. 

Species was more prevalent than thought at the 

time of listing.

Magazine Mountain shagreen 

(land snail)

U.S. Forest Service designating habitat areas as 

“special interest” areas and conducting additional 

monitoring. 

The Department of Defense withdrew plans to 

use the area for exercises, and FWS provided 

input to protect the species during development 

of an environmental impact statement for 

construction of a facility near the species’ 

habitat. 

Northern right whale (north 

Atlantic population)

Reducing collisions with ships and entanglement 

with fishing gear. 

World-wide ban on hunting in 1935 saved the 

species from extinction.

Socorro isopod (crustacean) Another population of isopods was created in 

1990 that relies on the same spring as the original 

population, bringing the total number of isopod 

populations to three. 

Establishment of a captive population in 1977 

was relied on to repopulate the habitat when the 

only wild population became extinct in 1988.
Page 24 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Sources: FWS and NMFS.

a

A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes of listing, is treated as a species 

under the Endangered Species Act.

Agency Comments We provided Interior and Commerce with a draft of this report for review 

and comment. Interior generally agreed with the information presented in 

this report; its letter is presented in appendix III. Additionally, Interior 

provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the report, as 

appropriate. Commerce declined to provide a general assessment of the 

draft because the report does not contain recommendations. Commerce 

did, however, provide technical comments that we have incorporated into 

the report, as appropriate. 

We performed our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A 

description of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I. 

As discussed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

Spring-loving centaury (plant) Securing land and water rights to protect habitat. Creation of a national wildlife refuge to protect 

essential habitat. 

Steller sea lion (eastern DPS)a Prohibition on shooting, and protection of habitat 

and offshore foraging areas.

Also protected by the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

Steller sea lion (western DPS)a Reduction of competition for prey with commercial 

fishing operations. 

Also protected by the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus Research to determine species morphology. Species was more prevalent than thought at the 

time of listing.

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Closures of key areas to prevent illegal collection, 

monitoring to identify additional colonies, and 

management of sheep grazing. 

The U.S. Forest Service established a “no 

ground disturbing” provision for the Rio Grande 

National Forest that prevents animals such as 

sheep from trampling potential butterfly habitat. 

Virginia round-leaf birch (tree) Habitat alteration to provide more sunlight to 

seedlings in the wild and distribution of 

greenhouse-grown seedlings to the public to stop 

collection from wild populations.

U.S. Forest Service fenced the two mature trees 

that occurred on National Forest land and 

conducted soil disturbance activities to 

encourage seed germination. 

Whooping crane Captive breeding and reintroduction programs. Protection of key habitat areas through the 

creation, in 1922, of a national park in Canada 

and the creation, in 1937, of a national wildlife 

refuge in Texas. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Species name 

Important recovery actions found in recovery 

plans

Events outside of recovery plans that have 

aided species’ recovery
Page 25 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and interested congressional 

committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report or need additional information, 

please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were Charles 

T. Egan, Trish McClure, Alison O’Neill, Rebecca Shea, Maria Vargas, and 

Mary Welch. 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources 

and Environment
Page 26 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

List of congressional requesters

The Honorable James M. Inhofe 

Chairman 

The Honorable James M. Jeffords 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Lincoln Chafee 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard W. Pombo 

Chairman 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Michael D. Crapo 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Craig Thomas 

United States Senate
Page 27 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

In response to a request from 10 members of Congress, we (1) identified 

factors affecting the length of time to recover 31 selected species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and (2) 

described the role that recovery plans have played in recovering these 

species. As agreed with our requesters, we selected a nonprobability 

sample of species to review. Results from nonprobability samples cannot 

be used to make inferences about a population because some elements in 

the studied population have no chance or an unknown chance of being 

selected. However, our in-depth review of these selected species provides 

valuable, case-level insights into their progress toward recovery and the 

role that recovery plans have played in that progress. 

We used a multi-step process to select the nonprobability sample of species 

for review. First, we used three criteria to identify species that were 

nearing recovery or had significant attention devoted to them, and thus 

would be expected to be making progress towards recovery. These three 

criteria were: (1) species that are nearing recovery as reported by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), (2) species with relatively high federal and 

state expenditures, and (3) species with at least one full-time staff member 

dedicated to recovery. To identify species nearing recovery, we used FWS’s 

fiscal year 2001–2002 biennial report to Congress on the status of species 

recovery.1

 This was the most recent report available at the time we selected 

our sample. In this report, FWS provides the percent of recovery objectives 

achieved for each species—both for those which it has primary 

responsibility, and for those which it shares responsibility with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We considered species to be nearing 

recovery if they were reported to have achieved 76 to 100 percent of their 

recovery objectives. NMFS does not report this measure. To identify 

species with relatively high federal and state expenditures, we used the 

fiscal year 2003 annual report to Congress of federal and state 

expenditures.2

 This was the most recent report available at the time we 

selected our species. It provides expenditure data on all listed species, 

regardless of which service has primary responsibility. We excluded 

salmon, steelhead, and the desert tortoise from this sample, even though 

they had relatively high expenditures, because we have issued

1

See FWS, Recovery Report to Congress, Fiscal Years 2001-2002. 

2

See FWS, Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures, Fiscal 

Year 2003. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

comprehensive reports on these species.3We relied on FWS officials to 

identify species that had at least one full-time staff member devoted to 

recovery efforts. NMFS officials told us that their staff work in recovery 

teams, and that having a full-time staff member dedicated to recovery 

efforts would not be a good measure of the resources the agency was 

devoting to recovery of the species. We identified 40 species that met these 

three criteria. 

Next, because of time and resource constraints, we took several steps to 

reduce the 40 species to a more manageable number. We prioritized species 

for review by generally selecting all of the species that satisfied at least two 

of the three criteria, and species that were nearing recovery and had 

relatively low federal and state expenditures (in order to understand how 

species can achieve recovery with relatively low expenditures). This 

process yielded 20 species for review. As agreed with your offices, we 

reviewed all 20 of these species and as many of the remaining 20 species as 

time and resources permitted. To prioritize this second group of 20 

species, we excluded certain species from review based on a variety of 

factors. For example, we chose to exclude species that were similar, or had 

similar habitats, to other species that were already included for review. For 

instance, we excluded some populations of the gray wolf from our sample 

because we had included the western Great Lakes population of the gray 

wolf in our first group of 20 species for review. We also excluded the 

Louisiana black bear because of the additional demands that Hurricane 

Katrina placed on local FWS staff. This process reduced the second group 

of species for review down to nine. 

While our selection process yielded 29 species for review, we ultimately 

reported on 31 species because 2 of the species we selected—the Papery 

whitlow-wort and the Steller sea lion—consist of subspecies or distinct 

population segments (DPS), and we included these in our review.4

 FWS has 

primary responsibility for all the species we reviewed except for three—the 

northern right whale and the eastern and western DPSs of the Steller sea 

lion—for which NMFS has primary responsibility. 

3

See GAO, Endangered Species: Research Strategy and Long-Term Monitoring Needed for 

the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program, GAO-03-23 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2002) 

and GAO, Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery 

Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions, GAO-02-612 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2002). 

4

A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a species for purposes of 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. See 61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996). 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

To identify factors affecting the length of time to recover the 31 selected 

species and describe the role that recovery plans have played in recovering 

these species, we reviewed each species’ recovery plan and Federal 

Register documents associated with each species’ listing and delisting 

actions, as appropriate. We also interviewed the services’ officials at 

headquarters, and the services’ biologists designated as the primary 

contact for each species’ recovery effort, and obtained additional 

documentation, as necessary. 

We performed our work between September 2005 and August 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Table 9 lists the species included in our nonprobability sample and the 

criteria used to select them. 

Table 9: Selection Criteria for Species Included in Our Nonprobability Sample

Species name

Federal and state 

expenditures, FY 2003

Percentage Of recovery 

objectives achieved, 

FY 2001–2002

At least one full-time staff member 

dedicated to recovery efforts

Mammals

Black-footed ferret $1,791,796 0-25 percent Yes

Columbian white-tailed deer 

(Douglas County population)

Not Availablea 76-100 percent No

Florida panther 6,301,276 0-25 percent Yes

Gray wolf (western Great 

Lakes population) 

403,108 76-100 percent Yes

Indiana bat 5,218,103 26-50 percent No

Northern right whale (north 

Atlantic population)

11,802,149 Not Applicableb Not Applicablec

Steller sea lion (eastern DPS) 5,296,600 Not Applicableb Not Applicablec

Steller sea lion (western DPS) 49,514,210 Not Applicableb Not Applicablec

West Indian manatee (Florida 

population)

 9,798,514 26-50 percent No

Birds

Bald eagle (northern states 

recovery area)

7,831,531 76-100 percent No

Red-cockaded woodpecker 11,069,069 0-25 percent Yes

Southwestern willow flycatcher 9,909,284 0-25 percent Yes

Whooping crane 3,299,156 26-50 percent Yes
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Sources: FWS and NMFS. 

a

The Douglas County population of the Columbian white-tailed deer was not included in the federal 

and state endangered and threatened species expenditures report for fiscal year 2003. The species 

was delisted in July 2003. 

b

NMFS does not report percent of recovery objectives achieved. 

c

NMFS officials told us that staff work in recovery teams and that having a full-time staff member 

dedicated to recovery efforts would not be a good measure of the resources the agency was devoting 

to the species recovery. 

Fishes

Borax Lake chub 19,600 76-100 percent No

Colorado pikeminnow 6,872,158 51-75 percent No

Razorback sucker 7,127,470 0-25 percent No

Rio Grande silvery minnow 11,300,700 0-25 percent Yes

Snails

Magazine Mountain shagreen 0 76-100 percent No

Insects

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly 40,343 76-100 percent No

Crustaceans

Socorro isopod 5,500 76-100 percent No

Plants

Ash Meadows gumplant 0 76-100 percent No

Ash Meadows sunray 300 76-100 percent No

(Ash Meadows) Spring-loving 

centaury 

0 76-100 percent No

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf 4,520 76-100 percent No

Eggert's sunflower 178,520 76-100 percent No

Johnston's frankenia 51,200 76-100 percent No

Papery whitlow-wort 

(central Florida subspecies)

200 76-100 percent No

Papery whitlow-wort 

(Florida panhandle 

subspecies)

Expenditures included 

under Papery whitlow-wort 

(central Florida subspecies)

76-100 percent No

Truckee barberry 30,225 76-100 percent No

Uinta Basin hookless cactus 30,747 76-100 percent No

Virginia round-leaf birch 1,300 76-100 percent No

(Continued From Previous Page)

Species name

Federal and state 

expenditures, FY 2003

Percentage Of recovery 

objectives achieved, 

FY 2001–2002

At least one full-time staff member 

dedicated to recovery efforts
Page 31 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on each of the 31 species we reviewed 

for this report, including species characteristics, threats to the species’ 

survival, and costs and partnerships for implementing recovery actions. 

The species’ profiles are organized by taxonomic group as follows: 

mammals, birds, fishes, snails, insects, crustaceans, and plants.

The information provided is based primarily on species’ recovery plans, 

Federal Register notices associated with the species, and information 

provided by the biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) who are responsible for 

recovering the species we reviewed. We have attempted to provide 

estimates of the costs to date to recover each species, however, there are 

inherent limitations to expenditure data, and species-specific information 

is not always available because recovery actions may benefit more than 

one species (e.g., through habitat restoration). Additionally, in some cases, 

federal and state agencies track expenditures by activity rather than by 

species. Complete expenditure data on a species’ recovery can also be 

difficult to obtain, because many entities, in addition to FWS and NMFS, 

may implement recovery actions, but are not required to report their 

expenditures. These entities include timber companies and commercial 

fishing operations, nongovernmental organizations such as The Nature 

Conservancy, and universities and independent researchers. 

Several of the profiles discuss Section 6 funds and Section 7 

consultations—these refer to sections in the Endangered Species Act. 

Section 6 authorizes grants to states that maintain programs to conserve 

listed species. Section 7 requires that federal agencies, in consultation with 

FWS or NMFS, insure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Following the 

consultation, FWS or NMFS must issue a biological opinion stating how the 

action will affect the species or its critical habitat. If jeopardy or adverse 

modification is found, the opinion identifies the steps (called “reasonable 

and prudent alternatives”) needed to avoid such harm. These consultations 

may result in an agency modifying its activities. 

Species with a listing date before 1973, the year the Endangered Species 

Act was enacted, were originally listed under provisions of the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of 1966 or the Endangered Species Conservation 

Act of 1969, and “grandfathered” onto the list of threatened and endangered 

species under the 1973 act.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 32 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Mammals

Black-Footed Ferret The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) was listed as endangered in 

1967, when only a small population remained in South Dakota. By the early 

1970s, the species was thought to be extinct in the wild. However, a small 

population of black-footed ferrets was discovered in Wyoming in 1981. 

Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced into Arizona, Colorado, 

Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Chihuahua, Mexico. Blackfooted ferrets are mostly nocturnal, solitary carnivores that feed on prairie 

dogs and live in prairie dog burrows. As such, black-footed ferret 

populations closely correspond to prairie dog populations. 

Threats The decline of the black-footed ferret was an unintended consequence of 

concerted public and private efforts to eliminate prairie dogs. Prairie dog 

populations were dramatically reduced or locally eliminated by large-scale 

conversion of native grasslands into crop lands, and decades of widespread 

poisoning designed to reduce prairie dog competition with cattle grazing. 

In more recent years, sylvatic plague, a disease spread primarily by fleas 

that is devastating to both prairie dog and ferret populations, has become a 

serious threat to ferret recovery. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the black-footed ferret in June 1978, 

revised it in August 1988, and is now revising it again. The plan seeks to 

ensure the species’ survival by maintaining a captive population and 

increasing free-ranging populations to the widest possible distribution 

across the ferrets’ historical range. FWS officials reported that the captive 

breeding program is the most important and expensive recovery activity for 

the ferret. FWS started with 18 captured black-footed ferrets in 1987. Since 

then, the ferrets have produced more than 5,000 offspring—over 2,000 of 

which have been released into the wild. 

FWS reports that, although the number of black-footed ferrets has 

increased substantially, recovery of the species remains a challenge. While 

the captive breeding program has worked well, reintroduction efforts have 

had mixed success. Two populations in South Dakota and one in Wyoming 

are thought to be self-sustaining, and substantial progress is being made at 

two other sites. However, drought and plague have affected population 

stability at other recovery areas. Specifically, a drought in South Dakota 

last year caused prairie dog populations in a section of the Buffalo Gap 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 33 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

National Grasslands, where the black-footed ferret had been successfully 

reintroduced, to disperse onto adjacent private lands. Thousands of acres 

of public and private lands were subsequently baited with poison by private 

landowners to eliminate the prairie dogs. Additionally, FWS and several 

partners are currently pursuing a plague vaccine for the ferret that appears 

promising. 

According to FWS officials, the technology and expertise to fully recover 

the ferret exists; they estimate that they could delist the species by 2025. 

However, the officials note that sufficient commitment from federal 

agencies, states, and private landowners to restore and protect sufficient 

habitat for wild populations does not exist and, as a result, the ferret faces 

an uncertain future. 

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials were not able to provide expenditure data for black-footed 

ferret recovery efforts, but estimated that the many partners involved in the 

species’ recovery spend more than $2 million annually. More than 50 

percent of recovery expenditures is for captive breeding; 35 to 45 percent is 

for reintroduction, monitoring, trapping for relocation, and habitat 

assessment. A very small fraction of expenditures is for habitat 

conservation. Some 27 state and federal agencies, tribes, and conservation 

organizations are official participants on FWS’s black-footed ferret 

recovery implementation team. 

Columbian White-Tailed 

Deer (Douglas County 

Population) 

The Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) was 

listed as endangered in 1967. At that time, only a small population was 

known to survive along the lower Columbia River and on some islands off 

the coast of Washington; however, an additional population was discovered 

in 1978 in Douglas County, Oregon. The lower Columbia River and the 

Douglas County populations were treated separately for recovery purposes 

because of differences in location, habitat, threats, and land use. The 

Douglas County population was classified as a distinct population segment 

(DPS) and delisted in 2003.1

1

A DPS is a subdivision of a vertebrate species that, for purposes of listing, is treated as a 

species under the Endangered Species Act. See 61 Fed. Reg. 4722 (Feb. 7, 1996). 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 34 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

 Threats An FWS official reports that the primary threats to the Columbian whitetailed deer were habitat loss and hunting (both legal and illegal). 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the Columbian white-tailed deer in 1976 

and revised it in 1983 after the 1978 discovery of the Douglas County 

population. An FWS official reports that the most effective recovery 

actions for the species were in the plan and were: (1) land acquisitions by 

state and local governments, FWS, and the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) to secure habitat; (2) a Douglas County ordinance that protects, in 

perpetuity, riparian areas from development; and (3) a partnership with the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife has researched, monitored, and maintained location and 

health data for the species for many years, and modified its monitoring 

methods at FWS’s request to obtain the data needed to delist the Douglas 

County population. 

Costs and Partnerships An FWS official reports that the agency does not have comprehensive 

recovery expenditure data for the Columbian white-tailed deer, but notes 

that recovery was done on a “shoestring budget” because, once FWS 

secured suitable habitat, the population rebounded without extensive 

agency intervention. FWS estimates it took about 20 percent of one staff 

member’s annual salary to conduct recovery activities and delist the 

Douglas County population. Between 1995 and 1998, FWS also provided 

$177,000 in funding through a cooperative agreement with the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife for monitoring and habitat research. 

Douglas County also incurred expenses to protect habitat and some private 

landowners contributed funds to recovery efforts. The FWS official 

attributes the Columbian white-tailed deer’s recovery to “strong 

partnerships and a cooperative spirit” with other governmental entities. 

Florida Panther The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), a subspecies of mountain lion, 

was listed as endangered in 1967. The Florida panther is six to seven feet 

long with short, dark rust-colored fur. It originally ranged from eastern 

Texas to South Carolina—through Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Tennessee—but is now restricted to 

less than 5 percent of its historic range. 

Threats The Florida panther faces several threats, including habitat loss, low 

genetic viability, and disease. The habitat that supports the only wild 

population is already at its carrying capacity and is shrinking by about 1 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 35 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

percent annually. Habitat loss is due to intensified urbanization, residential 

development, conversion to agriculture, water management, and mining 

and mineral exploitation. Because there are so few wild panthers in 

Florida, the species has suffered a loss of genetic variability—which often 

causes diminished health, such as heart and reproductive defects. The 

panther is also susceptible to diseases such as panleukopenia (decreased 

white blood cells), feline calicivirus, and pseudorabies. Any or all of these 

may increase kitten mortality and seriously reduce adult panther vitality. In 

2003 and 2004, 5 of the 87 known wild Florida panthers were lost to feline 

leukemia. FWS officials report that a lack of public support, based on fear 

of the animal and its predation on livestock and pets, is an obstacle to 

reintroducing the Florida panther into other sites in its historic range and, 

ultimately, recovering the species. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the Florida panther in 1981 and revised it 

in 1987, 1995, and 2006. According to FWS officials, the most important 

recovery actions for the species are found in the recovery plan. These 

include habitat protection, radio collaring and monitoring to determine the 

health and status of the population, constructing highway underpasses to 

reduce vehicle strikes, and introducing female panthers from Texas (which 

belong to a related subspecies) to the Florida population to restore genetic 

health. FWS officials said that one new female Texas panther needs to be 

introduced into the Florida population each generation to maintain 

sufficient genetic diversity. FWS officials report that the recovery plan for 

the Florida panther has been critical in keeping it from becoming extinct, 

but note that the plan focuses on avoiding extinction rather than promoting 

recovery. 

FWS officials report that it is unlikely that the panther will ever be 

recovered and delisted. Officials say that the Florida panther will never 

have a genetically sustainable population in south Florida because 

available habitat is not large enough to support a self-sustaining 

population, which would require at least 240 panthers, particularly given 

the rapid development that this area experiences. FWS has identified areas 

in Arkansas, Alabama, and northern Florida/southern Georgia where 

enough habitat exists to sustain populations of that size. However, 

reintroduction of panthers into these areas is unlikely to occur because of a 

lack of public support. 

Costs and Partnerships Most recovery tasks for the panther are implemented by the Florida 

Panther Interagency Committee, which was organized in 1986. This 

committee consists of several agencies including FWS, the National Park 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 36 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Service, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. FWS officials were 

unable to provide recovery expenditure data on panther recovery, but 

estimate that Florida state agencies bear about 90 percent of the costs, 

while the National Park Service and FWS account for about 7 percent and 3 

percent, respectively. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, with help from the National Park Service, has played a major 

role in genetics, radio collaring, and monitoring activities. 

Gray Wolf (Western Great 

Lakes Recovery Population) 

The gray wolf was listed as endangered in 1967. Gray wolves weigh about 

50 to 100 pounds and are usually a mixed gray color. The gray wolf has had 

a complex relationship with the law. When the act first took effect in 1973, 

two populations of gray wolves were “grandfathered” onto the list of 

threatened and endangered species—one in Minnesota and Michigan, and 

one in the northern Rocky Mountains. In 1976, two more populations of 

gray wolves that ranged in the southwestern United States were added to 

the list. To update the taxonomy of the species based on new information 

and address other issues, FWS issued a new listing in 1978 that classified 

the gray wolf as a single species that was endangered throughout the lower 

48 states, except for a population in Minnesota that was listed as 

threatened. Even though the gray wolf was listed as a single species, FWS 

still recognized separate populations for managing recovery efforts. (FWS 

officials later determined that wolves that historically occurred in 16 

southeastern states were actually a separate species—the red wolf.) For 

this report, we evaluated recovery actions for the western Great Lakes 

population; other populations are the western (which includes the Rocky 

Mountains) and the southwestern populations. 

The historic range of the western Great Lakes population (Canis lupus 

lycaon) once included most of the eastern United States and southeastern 

Canada, but its present U.S. range only includes parts of Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin. FWS officials believe that this population is 

ready to be delisted. However, its delisting is constrained because it is not 

listed as a separate entity—it is part of the larger gray wolf listing. To 

clarify the current status of the various populations of gray wolves and to 

delist the western Great Lakes population, FWS proposed a rule in 2000 to 

(1) reclassify the gray wolf as “not listed” in 16 southeastern states that are 

historic red wolf ranges; (2) establish a DPS for the western Great Lakes 

population to be listed as threatened; (3) establish a DPS for the western 

population to be listed as threatened; and (4) establish a DPS for the 

southwestern population to be listed as endangered. While the rule was 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 37 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

finalized in 2003, FWS was sued for this action. In early 2005, courts ruled 

that FWS’s action was arbitrary and capricious with regard to how they 

grouped states into these four separate classifications. Therefore, the wolf 

listing reverted to the prior listing action from 1978; this listing identifies 

the gray wolf as endangered in 47 of the lower 48 states, and threatened in 

Minnesota. To address the court’s concern with the prior delisting proposal, 

FWS is addressing redesignation of the gray wolf on a population-bypopulation basis. In February 2006, FWS issued an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking to establish a Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and 

delist it at the same time. Similarly, in March 2006, FWS officials proposed a 

rule to create a western Great Lakes DPS and delist it at the same time. 

Threats FWS officials report that ranchers who kill the wolf to protect livestock are 

the primary threat to the western Great Lakes population. In addition, the 

public’s fear of wolves results in opposition, which is a complicating factor 

for recovery of the species.

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the western Great Lakes population of 

the gray wolf in 1978 and revised it in 1992. Officials reported that the 

comprehensiveness of this plan and the numerous partners’ efforts made 

recovery of the western Great Lakes population possible. Actions in the 

recovery plan that were most important for recovering this population 

were the creation of programs to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to 

wolves, and the removal of wolves from areas where they prey on 

livestock. The plan also included public education on wolf biology, 

behavior, and ecology that has been important for improving the public’s 

understanding of the species. 

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials report that the large number of entities involved in recovery 

efforts for the gray wolf makes it impossible to estimate total expenditures. 

FWS expenditures in fiscal year 2004 included almost $645,000–$140,000 

for law enforcement; $60,000 for Section 7 consultations, mostly with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; $55,000 for monitoring and research on 

FWS refuges; and about $390,000 for the delisting process. The agriculture 

and natural resources departments in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 

dedicate resources to help FWS enforce laws that protect the gray wolf. 

Additionally, these states, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 

Wildlife Service and the nongovernmental organization Defenders of 

Wildlife, fund and manage the livestock compensation programs. Public 

education is conducted by a variety of additional nongovernmental 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 38 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

organizations, such as the International Wolf Center and the Timber Wolf 

Alliance. Indian tribes also protect the gray wolf on their land. 

Indiana Bat The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) was listed as endangered in March 1967. 

The Indiana bat is a migratory species that hibernates in the winter and 

disperses throughout much of the eastern United States in the summer. 

Based on censuses taken every other year in caves where the bats 

hibernate during the winter (called hibernacula), researchers estimate that 

the Indiana bat population has declined by about 60 percent since the 

1960s—falling to about 353,000 in the mid 1990s. 

Threats FWS officials report that they initially believed that winter habitat loss was 

the primary threat to the Indiana bat. The bats require certain temperatures 

in caves during their winter hibernation—they will freeze if the 

temperature is too low and burn up their fat reserves before spring if the 

temperature is too high. Large numbers of Indiana bats hibernate in a very 

small number of large, complex caves because such caves provide a more 

stable temperature than smaller caves. However, these caves are often 

easily accessible to humans and have features that make them attractive 

for recreational and commercial purposes. As a result, doors and walls 

were often added to cave openings, changing the temperature of the caves 

to the point that they no longer provide suitable habitat. In addition, 

researchers now believe that bat populations are affected by a number of 

threats when they are not hibernating, the most significant of which are not 

yet known. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the Indiana bat in 1983, and 

drafted a revision in March 1999. The 1999 revision, however, was not 

approved because of differences of opinion among recovery team 

members, and because FWS needed to address the significant public 

comments received. A new draft revision is expected in 2006. FWS officials 

report that an important recovery action that was identified in the 1983 

recovery plan was to protect hibernacula. Actions have been implemented 

to do this, including removing doors and walls in order to restore cave 

temperatures to normal, gating hibernacula to control human access, and 

allowing cave tours only during the summer when bats are not present. 

However, FWS officials report that these efforts have not always resulted in 

the expected increases in hibernating populations, suggesting that 

additional, unknown threats affect the Indiana bat. Therefore, the draft 

revision of the recovery plan is focusing heavily on research. FWS officials 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 39 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

report that they cannot estimate the Indiana bat’s potential for delisting 

because they lack sufficient information about key aspects of the species’ 

life cycle and the threats it faces. It appears that the population is 

increasing; however, it remains far below historic levels. 

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials could not provide an estimate of recovery expenditures for 

the Indiana bat because they are not centrally collected. Partners include 

states, which have used Section 6 funds for land acquisition, and the U.S. 

Forest Service (Forest Service) and Department of Defense, which monitor 

summer bat colonies on their lands. 

Northern Right Whale The northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) was listed as endangered 

in 1970. Adult right whales are generally between 45 and 55 feet in length 

and can weigh up to 70 tons. Historically, there were two populations of 

this whale. An eastern North Atlantic population was historically found 

along the northwestern coast of Africa and in Northern European waters, 

but is generally considered to be extinct. A western North Atlantic 

population is found along the eastern United States coast and includes 

about 300 whales. 

Threats The primary threats to the survival of the northern right whale are its low 

population numbers, fishing gear entanglement, and collisions with ships. 

In the past, the greatest threat was commercial whaling, which was banned 

internationally in 1935. 

Role of Recovery Plan NMFS approved a recovery plan for the northern right whale in 1991, and 

revised it in 2005. Several important recovery actions included in the 

recovery plan have been implemented for the species. In particular, 

extensive effort is expended implementing surveillance and alert systems. 

Specifically, aircraft surveys identify locations of right whales; these 

locations are then shared with ship captains. On a number of occasions, 

aircraft observers were able to contact and divert ships on direct courses 

for right whales. In addition, NMFS and the U. S. Coast Guard jointly 

developed a mandatory ship reporting system that became operational in 

1999 for use in right whale habitat to help avoid ship strikes. Ships entering 

right whale habitat are required to report their location, speed, and 

direction; an automatic message replies with relevant whale location 

information. U. S.Navy vessels also report information on ship strikes and 

provide advisories to ship captains. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 40 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Other important actions that have been implemented from the recovery 

plan include closing fishing areas during certain times, and buy-back 

programs for commercial fishing operations in which old fishing gear is 

purchased so it can be replaced with specially designed new gear that is 

less hazardous to whales. NMFS is also proposing prohibiting float rope—

used by fisherman between traps and fishing gear—which creates large 

loops of line that can cause serious injury and mortality to right whales. 

Although significant steps have been taken to reduce fishing gear 

entanglements and ship strikes, NMFS officials acknowledge that 

additional efforts are needed. NMFS officials report that the northern right 

whale has a high potential for recovery because the threats to the species 

are known and manageable. However, they report that it will take more 

than 50 years to meet recovery goals because right whales reproduce 

infrequently. 

Costs and Partnerships NMFS officials report that it would be difficult to provide comprehensive 

cost estimates because significant funding for right whale recovery is 

provided by other entities. Key partners in right whale recovery include the 

U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, other government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and the commercial fishing industry. 

Steller Sea Lion (Eastern 

and Western DPSs)

The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) was listed as threatened in 1990. 

In the 1950s, an estimated 240,000 to 300,000 Steller sea lions ranged across 

the Pacific rim from southern California, Canada, and Alaska, into Russia 

and northern Japan. By 1990, the species had declined by about 80 percent. 

In 1997, NMFS reclassified the Steller sea lion as two DPSs based on new 

genetic information—the eastern DPS extends east from Cape Suckling, 

Alaska, to British Columbia, and south to California; the western DPS 

extends from Japan around the Pacific Rim to Cape Suckling. The eastern 

DPS was listed as threatened, while the western DPS was listed as 

endangered. 

Threats NMFS reports that the primary threat to the Steller sea lion, at the time it 

was listed, was the killing of sea lions to protect fishing gear and reduce 

their population size. Additional threats for the western DPS include 

predation by killer whales, environmental change, subsistence harvests, 

and disease. These threats also affect the eastern DPS, but do not appear to 

be limiting its recovery. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 41 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Role of Recovery Plan NMFS approved a recovery plan for the Steller sea lion in 1992, and a draft 

revision is currently being considered. Important actions in the 1992 

recovery plan were to collect background information on the biology of 

Steller sea lions, develop and implement new research methods to better 

understand the causes of decline, and assess the efficacy of fishery 

conservation measures. In accordance with the recovery plan, NMFS and 

its partners have monitored Steller sea lion population trends, gained 

valuable information on general sea lion ecology, evaluated threats to 

recovery, and determined which populations are at risk. Key conservation 

measures in the recovery plan that have been implemented include 

reducing direct and incidental harm and killing by commercial fishing 

operations, eliminating disturbances at breeding sites, and reducing 

competition with commercial fisheries for sea lion prey. 

NMFS officials report that the eastern DPS has been doing well for quite 

some time and hope to delist it by 2010. The western DPS has been 

increasing by about 3 percent annually since 2000, but NMFS reports that 

this increase may not represent a statistically significant trend. The 

increases correlate with recovery actions taken in the late 1990s and 2000s 

to reduce direct harm and killing of sea lions by commercial fisheries and 

competition between fisheries and Steller sea lions; however, NMFS cannot 

definitively determine a causal link. If the western DPS continues to 

increase, NMFS officials said that they may consider downlisting it within 

the next decade and delisting it around 2030. 

Costs and Partnerships Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS received over $167 million in appropriations 

for Steller sea lion recovery efforts, with most of that provided in recent 

years. Funding from 1992 through 2000 totaled just $18.5 million, compared 

to about $149 million between 2001 and 2005—a substantial increase that 

resulted from concerns about the potential impact of commercial fisheries 

on the Steller sea lion’s decline. The most significant expenditures for the 

sea lion are on research. Approximately $40 million per year in 2001 and 

2002 was dedicated to research; current funding for research is about $20 

million per year. 

Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS’s internal funding accounted for about onethird of the overall expenditures on sea lion recovery (about $52 million); 

the remainder of the $167 million was distributed in the form of grants to 

state government, fishery management councils, and the public. NMFS 

activities include conducting Section 7 consultations, supporting the 

recovery team, and implementing conservation actions and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. NMFS officials report that partners have been 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 42 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

critical to sea lion recovery efforts and include state governments, fishery 

management councils, and the public. 

West Indian Manatee 

(Florida Population)

The Florida subspecies (Trichechus manatus latirostris) of the West 

Indian manatee was listed in 1967.2

 The manatee is a large gray or brown 

aquatic mammal. Adults average about 10 feet long and weigh about 1,000 

pounds. Florida manatees can be found throughout the southeastern 

United States, with Florida and Georgia at the core of its range. The Florida 

population consists of four subpopulations, divided regionally throughout 

coastal and riverine waters: the Atlantic, St. Johns River, northwest, and 

southwest. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s 2001 

survey of the Florida population reported a minimum of 1,400 to 1,500 

manatees in the Atlantic subpopulation; 1,400 in the southwest 

subpopulation; 175 in the upper St. Johns River subpopulation; and 400 in 

the northwest subpopulation. 

Threats FWS officials report that the primary threats to the manatee are collisions 

with watercraft, entrapment in navigation locks, entanglement in fishing 

gear, and a lack of warm-water wintering sites. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the manatee in 1980 and updated it in 

1989, 1996, and 2001. FWS officials report that decreasing the number of 

manatee deaths from watercraft collisions, entrapment in navigation locks, 

and entanglement in fishing gear are the most important efforts 

implemented as part of the recovery plan. Watercraft collisions, and related 

manatee deaths and injuries, have been the focus of FWS’s and its partner’s 

recovery activities for many years. At least 25 percent of manatee 

mortalities are caused by collisions with watercraft, and many manatees 

bear scars from these encounters. Federal and state managers have sought 

to reduce the number of such deaths and injuries through law enforcement, 

outreach, education, and the designation of manatee protection areas and 

no-wake zones. This process is ongoing, and efforts continue to reduce the 

number of such events.

2

This listing was amended in 1970 to include the Antillean subspecies (T. m. manatus). 

Within the jurisdiction of the United States, Antillean manatees are found in Puerto Rico, the 

Virgin Islands, and occasionally in Texas. There are two separate recovery plans for the 

West Indian manatee, one for the Florida subspecies and another for the Antillean 

subspecies in Puerto Rico.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 43 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

To reduce entrapment in navigation locks, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (the Corps) and state water management agencies have 

retrofitted water control structures and navigation locks with pressure 

sensors or acoustic arrays—devices that use acoustic signals to detect the 

presence of manatees—to allow trapped manatees to escape. In addition, 

Florida has banned fishing nets and is considering seasonal closures of 

fishing areas, which may help to reduce manatee mortality from 

entanglement in fishing gear. 

FWS officials report that they do not anticipate delisting the manatee in the 

near future, although they are reviewing the species to determine if it 

should be downlisted from endangered to threatened. The availability of 

warm-water wintering sites remains a major challenge to manatee 

recovery. Historically, the manatee relied on warm water from natural 

springs; these springs are diminishing, however. Many warm-water sites 

currently used by manatees are created artificially through discharges from 

power plants and other industries. Approximately 585 manatees have been 

counted at a single warm-water discharge site. If one of these plants closes 

and the water cools, even temporarily, manatee mortalities could number 

in the hundreds. Because manatees return to the same warm-water 

wintering sites year after year, preserving these sites is critical to 

successful recovery efforts—as is trying to attract manatees to more secure 

sites. However, given their fidelity to a single wintering site, it will take a 

long time to attract sufficient numbers of manatees to more secure 

wintering sites. 

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials report that estimating the cost of recovery for the manatee is 

challenging because of the large number of public and private 

organizations involved, but note that the costs are very high. For example, 

FWS officials state that, from fiscal years 1994 through 2005, the Corps 

spent over $7 million retrofitting gates on water control structures with 

pressure sensors and equipping navigation locks with acoustic arrays. It 

costs approximately $100,000 to retrofit each gate with the pressure 

sensors, and $1,000,000 to install acoustic arrays on navigation locks. State 

agencies have also contributed funds for these activities, but FWS officials 

did not have that cost information. Additional partners in manatee recovery 

include several zoos and aquaria—located in California, Florida, Ohio, and 

Puerto Rico—that conduct manatee rescue rehabilitation and release 

programs. In these programs, a manatee is brought into captivity when 

injured or sick and, upon rehabilitation, released back into the wild. FWS 

officials report that these programs also cost millions of dollars. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 44 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Birds

Bald Eagle (Northern States 

Recovery Area)

The bald eagle is a large bird of prey found only in North America. Eagles 

rely primarily on fish for their diet, and their habitat is almost exclusively 

near lakes, rivers, and sea coasts. Most bald eagles live for about 30 years, 

making it a relatively long-lived species. A bald eagle subspecies found in 

the southern United States was listed as endangered in 1967. However, in 

1978, due to a lack of distinguishing physical characteristics, FWS 

reclassified all bald eagles in the United States as one species (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus). FWS listed the species as endangered throughout the 

lower 48 states, except in Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and 

Wisconsin, where it was classified as threatened. To manage the recovery 

program for the bald eagle, FWS established five areas with individual 

recovery plans. We reviewed the northern states recovery area, which is the 

largest of these recovery areas; it covers 24 states. 

According to FWS officials, a 1963 survey of bald eagles in the lower 48 

states found only 417 nesting pairs. That number had grown to 3,399 pairs 

in 1991; of these, 1,188 pairs were found in the FWS region that leads the 

efforts for the northern states recovery area. In 1995, the bald eagle was 

downlisted from endangered to threatened throughout the lower 48 states. 

FWS proposed delisting the bald eagle in 1999 due to recovery, but met 

resistance because of concerns over the changes in protections afforded 

the species—even though it is also protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. FWS reinitiated the 

process to delist the bald eagle in February 2006. To address concerns with 

the prior delisting proposal, FWS also issued draft management guidelines 

for bald eagles and a proposed rule for a regulatory definition for “disturb” 

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

Threats Originally, the primary threats to the bald eagle were hunting, trapping, and 

pesticides—especially dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), which 

was widely used in the late 1940s to control insects that damaged 

agriculture and carried diseases such as malaria. FWS officials report that 

current threats to the bald eagle include habitat loss due to development 

and other human activities, especially along the coast and near inland 

rivers and waterways.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 45 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

 Role of Recovery Plan Historic threats to the bald eagle have long been mitigated. The Bald Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940 (amended as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act in 1962) made hunting and trapping the bald eagle unlawful; the eagle 

was afforded additional protection under the Endangered Species Act. In 

addition, the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in the United 

States in 1972 because of the harm it caused to wildlife. These actions 

occurred long before there was a recovery plan for the species. 

FWS approved a recovery plan for the northern states population of bald 

eagles in 1983. The plan covers 24 states where bald eagles were listed as 

either threatened or endangered. Key activities in the plan that have been 

implemented include protecting habitat, managing nesting areas, and 

educating the public to avoid disturbing habitats. FWS officials report that 

education and law enforcement programs called for by the recovery plan 

have resulted in habitat restoration and the reduction of illegal hunting and 

trapping. Additionally, they report that the extensive knowledge they 

obtained through years of research have contributed to the recovery 

process. Further, the bald eagles’ prominence as a national symbol, 

coupled with education and public support, has also been critical in the 

recovery of this species. Even though habitat loss continues to escalate as 

the U.S. population increases, bald eagle populations continue to grow.

Costs and Partnerships While FWS has led efforts to implement the recovery plan for the bald 

eagle, there are a wide variety of government partners in the northern 

recovery area, including state forestry departments, the Forest Service, the 

National Park Service, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR), and BLM. Nongovernmental partners include the 

National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, the American Eagle 

Foundation, forest product companies, and various bird watching 

societies. Additionally, FWS officials report that grassroots volunteer 

efforts and financial contributions from private parties played an important 

role in the bald eagle’s recovery. According to FWS officials, annual 

expenditures for the recovery and protection of the bald eagle, by public 

and private agencies nationwide, have exceeded $1 million each year for 

the past decade.

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was listed as 

endangered in 1970. It is a black and white bird about 8 inches long. On 

occasion, the male displays red feathers on its head. The woodpecker 

builds nest cavities in old-growth pine trees (70–120 years old) with wood 

that is both soft enough for the woodpecker to make a nest cavity and large 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 46 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

enough for the cavity to be free of pine resin. The bird’s range includes 

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. 

Threats An FWS official reports that the primary threats to the red-cockaded 

woodpecker are habitat fragmentation resulting from development, and the 

limited availability of old growth pine trees due to past timber harvests. 

Fire suppression activities also severely harm the species’ habitat because 

they result in hardwood tree encroachment in pine forests, which in turn 

causes woodpeckers to abandon their nesting cavities in these areas. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker in 1979, 

and revised it in 1985 and 2003. FWS reports that the most effective 

recovery actions are in the species’ recovery plan, and include (1) the 

scheduling of prescribed burns every 2 to 3 years to ensure suitable 

foraging habitat and prevent hardwood tree encroachment, (2) the building 

of artificial cavities in suitable trees, and (3) the relocation of red-cockaded 

woodpeckers into artificial cavities to establish new breeding populations. 

Building artificial cavities is necessary because most existing trees are not 

suitable for the red-cockaded woodpecker to carve cavities. 

In addition, during the 1990s, FWS worked with timber companies and 

other industries to determine the conditions under which these entities 

would assist in recovery efforts for the species, given that some habitat and 

potential habitat were privately owned. FWS officials report that 

agreements with these entities have played an important role in the redcockaded woodpecker’s recovery, and also provide private landowners 

with economic and legal predictability regarding the uses of their land. 

An FWS official reports that red-cockaded woodpecker populations have 

steadily increased, from 4,600 groups in 1995 to 5,900 groups in 2005 

(groups include a mating pair and other individuals who help build nesting 

cavities.) While these increases are promising, the FWS official estimates 

that, because of the time it takes for the woodpecker’s habitat to mature, it 

will take at least 25 years to downlist the species and over 50 years to meet 

the population and habitat requirements for delisting. 

Costs and Partnerships An FWS official reports that more than 150 public and private entities have 

been involved with recovery efforts; therefore, the complete cost of the 

red-cockaded woodpecker’s recovery cannot be estimated. Some federal 

agencies do have cost information—for example, the Department of 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 47 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Defense reported spending about $62 million on the species from 1991 

through 2003 (an average of about $5 million per year). The Forest Service 

spent slightly more than $1 million each year for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. 

In addition to federal agencies, FWS has agreements with many state 

agencies and private entities in Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina 

to implement recovery actions. Private entities involved include 

International Paper, The Nature Conservancy, Plum Creek Timber 

Company, Turner Endangered Species Fund, and private landowners.

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher 

The southwestern subspecies of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus) was listed as endangered in 1995. The southwestern willow 

flycatcher is a bird less than 6 inches long with a grayish-green back and 

wings, light grey to olive breast, whitish throat, and pale yellowish belly. It 

nests in dense growths of trees and shrubs in moist riparian ecosystems in 

the arid southwestern United States and northern Mexico, and migrates to 

Central America and northern South America for the fall and winter. 

Threats FWS reports that habitat loss and predation are the primary threats to this 

subspecies. There are three locations where a large proportion of the 

subspecies breeds, all of which may be damaged by efforts to divert water 

or tap into surrounding aquifers. Nest predation by avian, reptilian, and 

mammalian predators also threatens the southwestern willow flycatcher, 

but FWS officials say that it will not make recovery impossible. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the southwestern willow flycatcher in 

2002. FWS officials report that it took over 5 years to develop the recovery 

plan due to the amount of biological information needed and the amount of 

stakeholder involvement in the plan’s development. The recovery plan 

reflects the contributions of over 240 stakeholders in seven states, 

including state and federal agencies, private landowners, water 

management organizations, and about 15 Native American tribes. The plan 

identifies the actions that biologists believe are important for recovering 

the species, with habitat restoration being the most critical action needed. 

FWS officials report that, fortunately, flycatcher habitat can be developed 

and occupied quickly, and officials expect this to aid in a relatively quick 

recovery of the species. Although they are still early in the implementation 

of the recovery plan and much work is needed, FWS is optimistic about 

recovery of the species by 2020.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 48 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

The flycatcher also benefits from being included in the Lower Colorado 

River Multi-species Conservation Plan, which is a comprehensive plan for 

more than 26 listed and unlisted species that occur in certain areas in the 

lower Colorado River basin. Activities that are being implemented or are 

planned under this conservation plan (fiscal year 2006 is the first full year 

of implementation of this plan) include fish augmentation, research, 

monitoring, and habitat restoration. 

Cost and Partnerships FWS officials report that such a wide array of stakeholders makes it 

impossible to provide a cost estimate for the recovery efforts taken for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher. FWS officials estimate that the federal 

government pays about 60 percent of the total costs, state agencies about 

20 to 25 percent, and other entities about 15 percent. They report that the 

top five types of expenditures are for annual surveying and monitoring, 

land acquisition, habitat restoration, research, and complying with legal 

requirements. FWS estimates that, collectively, state agencies in Arizona, 

California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah have spent about $60 

million on the southwestern willow flycatcher since the subspecies was 

listed in 1995. This includes annual expenses of slightly less than $1 million 

for habitat improvement and about $1 million for surveying and monitoring 

414 sites. FWS, other federal agencies, state agencies, and entities seeking 

permits have spent about $44 million complying with legal requirements, 

primarily associated with evaluating the effects of projects on the species 

and its habitat, and, in some cases, reducing and minimizing adverse effects 

the projects might have. BOR and the U.S. Geological Survey have spent 

about $1 million on research. FWS estimates that the flycatcher portion of 

the Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Plan will cost about 

$2.2 million per year.

Whooping Crane The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as endangered in 1967. 

Whooping cranes weigh about 15 pounds and reach about 5 feet in height. 

They require a wetlands habitat with water about 18 inches deep, such as 

coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows, 

rivers, and agricultural fields. Whooping cranes live 20 to 30 years in the 

wild and up to 30 to 40 years in captivity, making them a relatively longlived species. Breeding pairs fledge chicks relatively late in their lives—at 

about 5 to 7 years of age—and may only successfully fledge 5 to 10 chicks 

during their lifetime. Breeding pairs return to the same summer and winter 

nesting territories each year.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 49 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

The whooping crane’s potential extinction was recognized as early as the 

beginning of the twentieth century and, by 1941, there were only 15 or 16 

known whooping cranes in the wild, all wintering in Texas. 

Threats The crane’s population decline was largely due to the hunting and draining 

of wetlands to convert land for agriculture. FWS officials report several 

continuing threats to the whooping crane, including habitat loss along its 

migratory routes and in its Texas gulf coast wintering area; development of 

power lines and wind turbines along its migratory routes; declining 

populations of the crane’s primary food source, the blue crab; rising water 

levels in coastal Texas attributed to global warming; and threats to water 

quality in the refuge wetlands in Texas due to urban development and 

potential chemical spills. 

Role of Recovery Plan Progress recovering the whooping crane is attributed to implementation of 

recovery plan actions, as well as actions taken before the species was even 

listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, 

several actions in the first half of the century helped prevent the extinction 

of the whooping crane. Passage of the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

ended legal hunting of the whooping crane; and the creation of a national 

park in Canada in 1922 and a national wildlife refuge in Texas in 1937 

preserved essential habitat. However, these actions were not sufficient to 

protect the crane from extinction and it was eventually listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

FWS approved a recovery plan for the whooping crane in 1980, revised it in 

1986 and 1994, and produced a new draft revision in 2005. Important 

recovery plan actions include the breeding of cranes in captivity with the 

intent to re-introduce the crane into the wild. Re-introducing the crane in 

this way will establish multiple self-sustaining wild populations. FWS 

officials report that implementing the recovery plan is challenging because 

they do not have control over major threats such as development, river 

flows, power line locations, and climate change. However, FWS officials 

report that the status of the whooping crane is improving, and attribute this 

improvement to the implementation of some of the recovery plan’s actions, 

including increasing the population and providing additional protection at 

the species’ summer and winter habitats. FWS and the Canadian Wildlife 

Service are maintaining what is believed to be an historic growth rate for 

the whooping crane—about 4.5 percent per year. FWS officials said that 

doing more to address impacts from power lines along the crane’s 

migratory routes is an important action remaining to help with recovery, 

but that doing so is resource-intensive. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 50 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Currently, there are three whooping crane populations in the wild and 

seven populations in captivity. One wild population nests in Canada and 

winters in Texas, another migrates between Wisconsin and Florida, and the 

third is a non-migratory population that lives in Florida. As of December 

2005, the total population was estimated to be about 476 cranes: 341 in the 

wild and 135 in captivity. FWS is hopeful about recovery of the species and 

expects to downlist the whooping crane from endangered to threatened 

around 2035.

Costs and Partnerships The whooping crane recovery program is a joint effort between FWS and 

the Canadian Wildlife Service. FWS officials estimate that about $82 million 

has been spent recovering the whooping crane between fiscal years 1950 

and 2005. However, this is likely an incomplete estimate because of the 

numerous domestic and international government agencies and private 

partners involved, including the Canadian government, the International 

Crane Foundation, Operation Migration, the Platte River Whooping Crane 

Maintenance Trust, the San Antonio Water System, the San Antonio Zoo, 

the Calgary Zoo, the U.S. Geological Survey, the universities of Alberta and 

Florida, and Texas A&M University. Officials stated that, in fiscal year 2005, 

the U.S. and Canadian governments spent about $2.5 million, private 

entities spent about $1.2 million, and universities spent about $38,000 on 

recovery actions for the crane. FWS officials stated that it costs about $1 

million annually to produce 25 whooping cranes in captivity, and that this 

expense has been shared between government and nongovernmental 

entities. 

Fishes

Borax Lake Chub The Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) was listed as endangered in 1980 

by an emergency regulation and was listed on a non-emergency basis in 

1982. The chub is a small minnow endemic to Borax Lake, a natural 10-acre 

lake fed by thermal springs that are situated atop large sodium-borate 

deposits in Oregon. 

Threats FWS reports that the initial primary threat to the Borax Lake chub was 

habitat loss due to potential impact from geothermal energy development 

and alteration of the lake’s shoreline. However, an FWS review of the chub 

in 2003 identified other threats to its water source. Specifically, the aquifer 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 51 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

that feeds Borax Lake may be at risk due to groundwater pumping on 

private lands, and increased recreational use at the lake poses a threat to 

the lake’s water quality. Recreational use such as off-highway vehicles, 

wading, camping, and boating, also increases the potential for introducing 

invasive plants and animals that may harm the chub. The chub is inherently 

vulnerable to catastrophic loss due to its highly limited distribution and 

dependence on a single water source. 

Recovery Plan Role A recovery plan was approved for the Borax Lake chub in 1987. Key actions 

called for by the recovery plan focus on protecting the lake ecosystem, and 

include the acquisition of key private lands, protection of subsurface 

waters, implementation of controls on human access, removal of livestock 

grazing, and monitoring of the population. FWS reports that, of these 

actions, the most significant that have been implemented are BLM’s 

designation of the land surrounding Borax Lake as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern in 1983, The Nature Conservancy’s purchase of 

Borax Lake and the surrounding private lands in 1993, The Nature 

Conservancy and BLM’s elimination of grazing within the critical habitat 

surrounding Borax Lake, and the completion of numerous studies of the 

chub and other species that led to a better understanding of the Borax Lake 

ecosystem. Additionally, a crucial action for the species recovery that was 

external to the recovery plan was the passage of the Steens Mountain 

Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, which withdrew 

public lands from mineral and geothermal development within most of the 

area surrounding Borax Lake. 

FWS reports that it has met many of the chub’s recovery objectives over the 

last two decades and that the species may be nearing recovery. Actions 

needed to downlist the chub from endangered to threatened include the 

development of a conservation agreement (or a memorandum of 

understanding) between FWS, BLM, The Nature Conservancy, and the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to clarify roles and 

responsibilities associated with the management of the chub and the Borax 

Lake ecosystem. Other actions likely needed before delisting include (1) 

assessing visitor use of Borax Lake; (2) eliminating inappropriate vehicle 

and boat access to reduce the threat of invasive species; (3) investigating 

the use of interpretive signs, boardwalks, and designated observation sites 

to explain the unique and fragile features of the ecosystem; (4) conducting 

additional research to determine the risks of developing groundwater 

resources on private lands, public lands with private subsurface rights, and 

(pending the results of additional research) acquiring groundwater and/or 

surface rights as needed; and (5) developing a contingency plan that would 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 52 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

identify procedures, needed equipment, and responsibilities for collecting 

fish in case of an emergency.

Cost and Partnerships An FWS official reported that information on the implementation costs of 

recovery actions, by agency or organization, is limited; however, the official 

estimated that less than $50,000 has been spent on the chub in the last 

decade. Over the last 5 years, FWS has spent approximately $20,000 on 

recovery implementation, of which $5,000 was used to assemble a scientific 

panel for a study of the status of the Borax Lake chub and $15,000 was 

allocated for monitoring (and the development of a long-term monitoring 

plan). Key partners in the chub’s recovery effort have been The Nature 

Conservancy, BLM, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Colorado Pikeminnow The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), originally called the 

Colorado squawfish, was listed as endangered in 1967. The Colorado 

pikeminnow is the largest North American minnow; weights over 79 

pounds and lengths of almost 6 feet have been recorded. However, more 

recently, specimens weighing more than 15 pounds have been rare. Natural 

populations live in rivers in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, while 

hatchery-reared Colorado pikeminnow have been stocked in the Salt and 

Verde Rivers in Arizona. The largest population of Colorado pikeminnow is 

found in the Green River in Colorado and Utah, although FWS officials 

report that this population declined from 3,100 in 2001 to 2,300 in 2003. The 

population in the Colorado River has been increasing since estimates began 

in 1991. 

Threats FWS officials report that the primary threats to the Colorado pikeminnow 

are reduced water flow in rivers due to consumptive use, stream flow 

regulation, and drought; hydromodification due to dams; and competition 

with, and predation by, nonnative fish in their habitat. Dams have 

fragmented rivers and blocked fish passages, while the reservoirs formed 

by these dams were stocked for recreational fishing with nonnative fishes 

that prey upon the Colorado pikeminnow and compete with it for food. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the Colorado pikeminnow in 1978 and 

revised it in 1991; the plan was revised again in 2002 to include more 

specific recovery goals. The Colorado pikeminnow is one of four fish 

covered by both the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 53 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.3 

FWS officials report that management actions in the recovery plan that 

address threats have been implemented, successfully moving the 

pikeminnow towards recovery. Objectives for downlisting the Colorado 

pikeminnow include maintaining a specified number of naturally selfsustaining populations in two to three areas. To meet these objectives, 

actions have been taken on all the major rivers in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin (including the San Juan River Basin); these actions include ensuring 

appropriate water flow and quality, and controlling problematic nonnative 

fishes. FWS officials report that the pikeminnow responds quickly to 

habitat improvements and reproduces quickly; they hope to delist the 

species around 2015. 

Costs and Partnerships The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program track expenditures for 

the Colorado pikeminnow, the razorback sucker, the bonytail, and the 

humpback chub together, so costs specific to Colorado pikeminnow 

recovery are not available.4

 Both programs are funded primarily by power 

revenues from the Colorado River Storage Project and long-term cost 

sharing between the four participating states—Colorado, New Mexico, 

Utah, and Wyoming.5

 FWS is one of many program partners, including 

other federal agencies; Native American tribes; and private entities like the 

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, the Colorado Water 

Congress, the Utah Water Users Association, The Nature Conservancy, and 

Western Resource Advocates. From fiscal years 1989 through 2006, the 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program spent more 

than $161 million on endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided 

more than $20 million. From fiscal years 1992 through 2006, the San Juan 

River Basin Recovery Implementation Program spent more than $34.6 

3

These programs also address the razorback sucker, which is another species we reviewed 

for this report.

4

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program: Program Highlights 2005-2006 provides a summary 

of the programs, including a complete list of partners, total costs for implementing various 

elements of the programs, and detailed status information on the four species.

5

The Colorado River Storage Project is a multipurpose plan, undertaken by BOR in 1956, to 

control the flow of the upper Colorado and its tributaries, and to aid in the development of 

the upper Colorado River basin. Since the flow of the Colorado is erratic, this project was 

needed to maintain an even flow of water to the lower basin during dry years. A series of 

dams regulates stream flow, provides storage reservoirs, creates hydroelectric power, and 

irrigates both new and previously developed acreage. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 54 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

million on endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided more than 

$1.6 million. 

Razorback Sucker The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) was listed as endangered in 

1991. It grows to about 2.5 feet in length and weighs less than 7 pounds. In 

the mid 1970s, less than 100 adult razorback suckers were estimated to live 

in the middle Green River in Colorado and Utah. Currently, it is found in 

small numbers in rivers in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and 

Utah, with the largest concentration in Lake Mojave. 

Threats FWS officials report that the biggest threats to the razorback sucker are 

stream flow regulation in rivers, habitat modifications, competition and 

predation by nonnative fish stocked for recreational fishing, pesticides, and 

pollution. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the razorback sucker in 1998 and 

amended it in 2002 to include more specific goals. The razorback sucker is 

one of four fish the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program 

are working to recover.6

 FWS officials report that management actions in 

the recovery plan are being implemented and have been important to 

recovery progress made for the species. These actions include efforts to 

expand existing populations and establish new ones, ensure appropriate 

water flow and quality, control problematic nonnative fishes, acquire and 

protect floodplain habitat, minimize the risk of hazardous-materials spills 

in critical habitat areas, and minimize the threat of hybridization with the 

white sucker. Reintroducing hatchery-produced razorback suckers has 

been the foundation for successfully reestablishing self-sustaining 

populations of the species in several Colorado and Utah rivers. For 

example, population surveys have found the number of fish increased from 

about 100 in the mid-1970s to about 2,700 in the early 2000s. FWS officials 

report that they anticipate delisting the species around 2025. 

Costs and Partnerships The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program track expenditures for 

the razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, and humpback chub 

6

These programs also address the Colorado pikeminnow, which is another species we 

reviewed for this report.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 55 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

together, so costs specific to the razorback sucker recovery are not 

available.7

 Both programs are funded primarily by revenues from the 

Colorado River Storage Project, and long-term cost sharing between the 

four participating states—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.8

 

FWS is one of many program partners, including other federal agencies; 

Native American tribes; and private sector entities like the Colorado River 

Energy Distributors Association, the Colorado Water Congress, the Utah 

Water Users Association, The Nature Conservancy, and Western Resource 

Advocates. From fiscal year 1989 through 2006, the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program spent more than $161 million on 

endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided more than $20 million. 

For fiscal years 1992 through 2006, the San Juan River Basin Recovery 

Implementation Program spent more than $34.6 million on endangered fish 

recovery, of which FWS provided more than $1.6 million. 

Rio Grande Silvery Minnow The Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) was listed as 

endangered in 1994. The minnow is a 4-inch long silver and white fish that 

historically lived throughout the Rio Grande River basin in New Mexico 

and Texas. When listed, it occupied only 5 percent of its historic range—a 

187-mile area of the Rio Grande River in New Mexico—and had been 

completely extirpated from the Pecos River and downstream portions of 

the Rio Grande River. 

Threats FWS officials cite habitat modification as the primary threat to the species, 

which they attribute to several causes, such as stream modification and 

channelization; regulation of river flow to provide water for agricultural 

and industrial uses; diminished water quality caused by municipal, 

industrial, and agricultural discharges; and competition with or predation 

by introduced nonnative fish species. FWS traces the decline of the silvery 

minnow all the way back to 1916, when Elephant Butte Dam, one of five 

dams constructed within the minnow’s habitat, closed its gates. Nonnative 

fish species that were stocked into the reservoirs created by the dams often 

completely eliminated native fish species. Droughts have also posed 

problems for the species, as in 1996, when 30 miles of river went dry. 

7

See footnote 4 for details.

8

See footnote 5 for details.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 56 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the Rio Grande silvery minnow in 1999 

and is currently revising it. It is scheduled to be complete in 2006 and will 

continue many of the actions in the current plan. FWS officials report that 

the most successful recovery actions for the minnow, which are all 

included in the current recovery plan, are cooperative water management, 

habitat restoration, and captive propagation and release of minnows—over 

600,000 silvery minnows have been released into the wild since 2002. 

Another critical action in the recovery plan includes efforts to establish 

habitat and re-establish minnow populations outside its current range in 

the Rio Grande River. FWS has initiated processes to establish an 

experimental population in Big Bend National Park in Texas. FWS hopes to 

finalize these processes by the fall of 2007 and begin stocking fish in Big 

Bend in the spring of 2008. FWS officials estimate the minnow will be 

delisted around 2030, but this is contingent on continued successful 

reintroduction of the species.

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials report that they cannot provide comprehensive recovery cost 

estimates for the silvery minnow because of the large number of partners 

involved. However, FWS officials report that the Middle Rio Grande 

Endangered Species Collaborative Program and BOR have spent the most 

on recovery actions since 2001—about $28 million and $11 million, 

respectively. Other expenditures for recovery actions for the minnow 

include about $500,000 by FWS and $5 million by the Interstate Stream 

Commission in New Mexico. The collaborative program is a partnership of 

20 organizations, including the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 

the Corps, the Interstate Stream Commission, and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. The program is focused on protecting and improving the status of 

endangered species along the Middle Rio Grande River including the 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (another listed species we reviewed for 

this report). These two species benefit from actions to restore water flows 

and habitat. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 57 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Snails

Magazine Mountain 

Shagreen 

The Magazine Mountain shagreen (Mesodon magazinensis) was listed as 

threatened in 1989. The shagreen is a brown or buff-colored snail about 

one-half inch wide and less than one-half inch high. It is known to live only 

in rock debris along the base of cliffs on the north and west slopes of 

Mount Magazine in the Ozark National Forest in western Arkansas. 

Threats FWS officials cite the potential for habitat loss as the greatest threat to the 

shagreen because it relies on a single, highly unique habitat. Threats to the 

species when it was listed included a proposal by the Department of 

Defense, which would have brought heavy military equipment into the 

shagreen’s habitat, and the development of a state park on Mount 

Magazine. Today, the species remains vulnerable to catastrophic events, 

such as wildfire, which could completely destroy its habitat. 

Role of Recovery Plan The two primary threats to the snail when it was listed were mitigated by 

actions that were outside of the recovery plan for the species. Specifically, 

the Forest Service designated Mount Magazine as a “special interest area,” 

which affords protection to the species by prohibiting certain activities 

such as timber harvesting and the use of herbicides and pesticides. The 

Department of Defense withdrew its proposal for military operations in the 

area because it conflicted with the Forest Service’s land management plan 

for the area. In addition, FWS participated in the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement for the development of the proposed state 

park, which led to a memorandum of understanding between FWS, the 

Forest Service, and the Arkansas State Parks agency. The memorandum of 

understanding ensures protection of the species during the development of 

the park. 

FWS approved a recovery plan for the shagreen in 1994 and, with its 

partners, has implemented most of the actions. Two of the important 

recovery tasks in the plan were (1) the Forest Service’s monitoring of the 

shagreen population for 10 years—which is almost complete—and (2) 

FWS, the Forest Service, and the State of Arkansas entering into a 

memorandum of agreement to share in recovery efforts and protection of 

the species. Additional recovery actions that have been important for the 

species include better planning in regards to prescribed fires, timber 

harvests, and use of chemical fire retardants within the shagreen habitat. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 58 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

These actions were not included in FWS’s recovery plan, but were part of 

the Forest Service’s Ozark National Forest Management Plan and the 

special interest area designation of Mount Magazine. Additionally, FWS and 

the Forest Service have held numerous informal consultations on fire 

management, and are developing a new method of monitoring overall 

forest health that would include monitoring other snails that inhabit the 

forest floor as surrogates for the shagreen. Although Forest Service 

surveys show that the population appears to be stable, it remains listed 

because funding for the research needed to delist it had not been available 

until this year. FWS reports that it may be able to delist the species by 2010. 

Costs and Partnerships According to an FWS official, the Forest Service estimates that the cost to 

monitor the Magazine Mountain shagreen has been about $1,000 per year 

for the last 9 years. This constitutes at least 75 percent of the total amount 

of funds the Forest Service has spent to recover the shagreen. The other 25 

percent of Forest Service costs were for supporting actions, such as 

revising the land management plan for the area and developing land 

management standards to protect the shagreen. The proposed biological 

research needed to support delisting the species will cost about $90,000. 

FWS, the Forest Service, and the University of Arkansas have recently 

committed about $30,000 each to this effort. Research is planned to begin 

in the summer of 2006 and will take about 3 years to complete. 

Insects

Uncompahgre Fritillary 

Butterfly

The Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema) was discovered 

and identified as a new species in 1978, and listed as endangered in 1991. 

The Uncompahgre fritillary has rust-brown wings crisscrossed with black 

bars, and a 1-inch wingspan. Its habitat range is one of the smallest of North 

American butterfly species—patches of snow willow plants in alpine 

meadows above 12,000 feet, on northeast facing slopes, in the San Juan 

Mountains of southern Colorado. Two Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly 

colonies were initially found on Mount Uncompahgre and Redcloud Peak. 

Threats An FWS official reports that the greatest threats to the Uncompahgre 

fritillary butterfly are humans trying to collect it; and trampling of its larvae 

by humans and livestock. In addition, changes in climate, such as hotter or 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 59 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

drier weather, may be responsible for observed decreases in butterfly 

populations in certain years. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the Uncompahgre fritillary 

butterfly in March 1994. The plan calls for 10 colonies of butteflies to be 

stable for 10 years before the species can be delisted. Tasks in the recovery 

plan that have helped improve the species’ status include enforcing 

restrictions on collection; searching for new colonies; monitoring 

population status and climatic trends; and researching habitat 

requirements, threats, and propagation. Monitoring has identified nine 

additional colonies in the San Juan Mountains that appear to be stable. The 

colonies were found entirely on BLM and Forest Service land. To prevent 

collection and trampling of the species, the Forest Service and BLM 

erected signs to serve as notice to collection prohibitions and modified 

trails to divert hikers and livestock away from butterfly colonies. 

According to the FWS official, collectors are generally dissuaded by the 

signs and the presence of researchers in the area. Additionally, research 

has led to a better understanding of the species’ habitat needs. FWS 

officials said that they may be able to delist the species around 2015. 

Costs and Partnerships According to an FWS official, about $40,000 was spent in fiscal year 2003 

for recovery activities for this species—about $9,000 by FWS; $13,000 by 

the Forest Service, and $18,000 by BLM—primarily for research and 

monitoring. Three national forests have been involved in these efforts: the 

Gunnison National Forest has provided about $7,000 annually for at least 

the past 10 years, the Rio Grande National Forest has provided about 

$1,500 annually for the past 4 years, and the San Juan National Forest has 

provided about $1,000 annually for the past 2 years. BLM provides about 

$3,000 annually for research and monitoring, and has incurred additional 

costs for researchers’ housing, trail maintenance, signage, and staff time. 

Additionally, the FWS official to whom we spoke estimates that, since 1991, 

FWS has spent about $9,000 annually for staff time and for a vehicle to 

access butterfly habitat.

Crustaceans

Socorro Isopod The Socorro isopod (Thermosphaeroma thermophilum) was listed as 

endangered in 1978. The isopod is a freshwater crustacean about 4 to 13 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 60 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

millimeters long with a flattened, segmented body, seven pairs of legs, 

antennae on the head, and oar-like extensions on its last segment. It 

survives in warm water with a very narrow range of temperature and 

salinity. It is endemic to the outflow of Sedillo Spring, a thermal spring 

found near the base of the Socorro Mountains in New Mexico. The Socorro 

isopod is of particular scientific interest because it is one of only two 

freshwater isopods in the primarily marine sphaeromidae family. 

Threats FWS reports that the potential for habitat loss is the greatest threat to the 

Socorro isopod given its narrow habitat requirements and restricted 

distribution. The spring that the species depends on has been modified 

since the early 1900s, when a bathhouse was built to take advantage of its 

warm water. In addition, the aquifer that supplies water to the spring could 

be lost or degraded due to drought and/or human uses. The water rights to 

the spring and the bathhouse are privately owned, and there is no long-term 

conservation agreement with the property owner to protect the species. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the Socorro isopod in 1982. FWS reports 

that they have completed all planned recovery actions deemed critical to 

the Socorro isopod's survival that are within their capabilities. These 

include stablizing and protecting the populations and their habitats, 

including a more secure water flow; and conducting additional research 

and monitoring. However, even before a recovery plan was in place for the 

isopod, an essential action was implemented that proved critical to the 

species’ survival. Specifically, captive populations were established in 1977 

in order to protect the species against extinction. These populations saved 

this species when, in August 1988, tree roots blocked the spring’s flow and 

the wild population of Socorro isopods became extinct. After the spring’s 

flow was restored in September 1988, isopods from the captive populations 

were reintroduced. The threat of extinction of this species was further 

mitigated in 1990, when Socorro isopods from the native and captive 

populations were introduced into a new facility called the Socorro Isopod 

Propagation Facility. This facility consists of eight cement tanks located in 

a secure area one-half mile north of the bathhouse, and is fed by water from 

the same spring. The population at this facility has been monitored monthly 

since November 1994, and FWS reports that it is stable. 

However, FWS has yet to obtain a long-term conservation agreement with 

the private landowner although the landowner has taken steps to protect
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 61 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

the bathhouse and spring. FWS reports that the lack of an agreement 

means that the wild population will likely remain susceptible to extirpation 

for the foreseeable future. As a result, it is unlikely that the Socorro isopod 

will ever be delisted, although it may eventually be downlisted. 

Cost and Partnerships FWS reports that the Socorro isopod has been an inexpensive species to 

protect. One of the highest expenditures was $29,000 to build the 

propagation facility in 1989. Most of the recovery and maintenance costs 

have been funded with Section 6 grants to the state of New Mexico. 

Partners in the recovery efforts include FWS, the New Mexico Department 

of Game and Fish, the cities of Albuquerque and Socorro, and the private 

owner of the water rights and bathhouse at Sedillo Spring.

Plants

Ash Meadows Gumplant, 

Ash Meadows Sunray, and 

Spring-Loving Centaury

Three plants—the Ash Meadows gumplant (Grindelia fraxino-pratensis), 

the Ash Meadows sunray (Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata), and the 

spring-loving centaury (Centaurium namophilum)—were listed as 

threatened at the same time in 1985. Ash Meadows is a 50,000-acre region 

of desert uplands and spring-fed oasis in the Mojave Desert that straddles 

the California–Nevada border. FWS manages about one half of this area as 

the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The Ash Meadows gumplant 

and spring-loving centaury are wetlands plants with similar habitat needs, 

while the Ash Meadows sunray is an upland plant that requires a much 

drier environment. The gumplant has yellow flowers and is a biennial or 

perennial that lives along streams and pools. The centaury has pink flowers 

and is an annual plant that occurs on moist to wet clay soils. The sunray 

has yellow flowers and is a perennial plant that occurs only in saline soil 

and limestone outcroppings in Nevada. 

Threats FWS officials report that the primary threats to the three plants, at the time 

they were listed, were development and water diversion that would have 

resulted from a planned resort community in the Ash Meadows region. An 

additional threat specific to the sunray was trampling by cattle and horses, 

and now this species is threatened by potential mineral development. 

Currently, the primary threat to the centaury and gumplant is from invasive 

plants. Five thousand acres of the wildlife refuge were agricultural lands 

that went fallow, and invasive species began to expand in the area. One 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 62 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

species, the Russian knapweed, is a particular threat to the centaury and 

gumplant because its woody stalks increase the likelihood of wildfires. 

Role of Recovery Plan The threat of development and water diversion to all three plants was 

eliminated when The Nature Conservancy purchased 12,654 acres in Ash 

Meadows; it was later sold to FWS to establish the Ash Meadows National 

Wildlife Refuge in 1984. Grazing was removed from the refuge in 1985. 

These actions occurred prior to FWS approving a recovery plan for the 

three Ash Meadow species, and nine others, in 1990. Recovery plan 

objectives include collecting basic information about the species and 

securing land and water rights. Land management activities essential to the 

species’ recovery are carried out by FWS and BLM. Almost all of BLM’s 

land is within the refuge and therefore managed by FWS. BLM also owns 

land surrounding the refuge and designated it as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern, which provides protection for the fish and wildlife 

resources occurring there. 

These actions have been important for improving the outlook for the 

species, but FWS officials cannot estimate a recovery date for the centaury 

and gumplant because they are unsure how to control the invasive plants 

that threaten the species. In addition, while they report that they believe 

the sunray is abundant, delisting is precluded because much of its habitat 

remains open to clay mineral extraction. Although FWS has acquired some 

of the mineral rights in the clay deposits, other lands remain open to 

mineral development. 

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials report they cannot provide a recovery cost estimate for these 

three species because most of the recovery actions also help other species 

in the area. They report that the largest expense, by far, has been the 

acquisition of land and water rights. FWS operations and maintenance for 

the refuge are the second largest expense while stream restoration is a 

distant third, although FWS plans to increase these efforts.

Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) was listed as 

threatened in 1989. This plant species is usually no more than 6 inches tall 

and has dark, leathery, heart-shaped evergreen leaves, and beige to dark 

brown jug-shaped flowers. It occurs in a small portion of the upper 

piedmont region of North Carolina and South Carolina, where it grows in 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 63 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

streamside habitats and acidic soil on bluffs and adjacent slopes. At the 

time of listing, there were about 23 known populations in eight counties. 

Threats At the time of listing, threats to the species were residential and industrial 

development, conversion of habitat to pasture or small ponds, timber 

harvesting, and cattle grazing. FWS officials report that residential and 

industrial development is now by far the primary threat to the species. 

Most dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are located on private property 

or in public utility and transportation corridors—areas that are being 

developed at much higher rates than when the species was listed. More 

than one half of the known populations were discovered during 

environmental reviews for proposed development projects, and FWS 

officials report that many of these populations have been at least partially 

impacted by these developments. The introduction and spread of riparian 

invasive plant species is also a threat. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS has not approved a recovery plan for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. 

The agency developed a draft in association with a status review in 1997, 

but because of the information gained during the review—including the 

discovery of new populations and concerns the recovery partners raised 

about taxonomy—the plan was never finalized. While found to be more 

abundant than originally thought (surveys have more than tripled the 

number of known populations and expanded the species distribution to 16 

counties), the species was not proposed for downlisting after the 1997 

review because some partners raised concerns as to whether or not the 

species’ survival could be assured, given that the majority of known 

populations occur in a region of increasing development pressure. 

Partners expressing concerns included the North Carolina Plant 

Conservation Program, the North Carolina’s Natural Heritage Program, 

university botanists, and consultants; these partners also raised questions 

about the taxonomy of the species, as well as the identification of the 

species at some of the known sites. 

Although the current population estimates indicate that the species has the 

potential to be delisted, additional steps are needed to mitigate 

development. According to FWS officials, to address this threat, FWS first 

needs to determine which of the many populations are critical to the 

species’ continued survival, and whether they are stable. Once those 

populations are identified, FWS would then need to obtain agreements 

from landowners or acquire land to ensure continued protection. FWS 

officials would like to quantify rates of habitat loss by examining available 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 64 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

development indicators, such as building permits, but have not obtained 

sufficient funding to do so. 

FWS initiated another status review in 2004 to determine whether the 

species continued to warrant protection under the Endangered Species 

Act. If the review finds that the species still warrants protection under the 

act, FWS will propose recovery criteria, including specific actions for 

different locations and estimated costs. FWS expects to pursue delisting 

the heartleaf by 2015, pending the results of the status review. FWS officials 

believe they can carry out any needed steps for this species without a 

recovery plan. 

Costs and Partnerships Despite not having a final recovery plan, FWS works with other federal 

agencies, state agencies, and private organizations to address existing 

threats to the species. FWS officials could not estimate costs to recover 

this species, but said that most recovery actions have been funded through 

expenditures on Section 7 consultations. FWS has completed several 

consultations with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and 

associated state agencies, that have resulted in protections for some 

populations of the heartleaf. Monitoring and management programs are 

still being developed for many of these sites. Other partners that have 

assisted FWS in surveying and monitoring dwarf-flowered heartleaf 

populations include the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, the 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, university botanists, and 

consultants. 

Eggert’s Sunflower Eggert’s Sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) was listed as threatened in 1997. 

Eggert’s sunflower grows in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee at the 

interface of woodlands and grassy openings. It thrives in tree stands with 

little woody understory, and tolerates a wide range of light conditions, 

moisture levels, and disturbance. It persists in, and may even invade, 

roadsides, power line rights-of-way, and fields that have suitable open 

habitat. The species was delisted in 2005 due to recovery and the discovery 

of additional populations. 

Threats FWS officials report that threats to Eggert’s sunflower at the time of listing 

included: (1) fire suppression, because the species relies on periodic fires 

to maintain suitable habitat; (2) loss of habitat due to development; (3) 

invasion by nonnative plant species; (4) habitat impacts from maintenance 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 65 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

of roadsides and power lines, such as herbicide spraying and mowing; and 

(5) herbivory, including by insects and white-tailed deer. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for Eggert’s sunflower in 1999. The plan’s 

actions included prescribing fires, rescheduling mowing for road and 

power-line maintenance to times when it is less likely to harm the species, 

surveying the species, researching genetics, and establishing new 

populations. Officials report that the recovery plan accurately identified 

management actions necessary to recover this species, and noted that the 

species responded well to these actions. At the time of delisting, 20 

geographically distinct, self-sustaining populations had been protected by 

conservation agreements. 

Costs and Partnerships Post-delisting activities include the monitoring of the 20 populations, under 

conservation agreements with public and private landowners, including 

Arnold Air Force Base, Mammoth Cave National Park, the Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency, the City of Nashville, The Nature Conservancy, 

and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. FWS officials could not estimate 

the cost of this species’ recovery, but estimated that the federal government 

has provided about 80 percent of the cost, while state agencies and private 

entities contributed the remaining 20 percent. FWS managed and 

coordinated the recovery efforts, so its costs include salaries for 

coordination, field work, and surveys. 

Johnston’s Frankenia Johnston’s frankenia (Frankenia johnstonii) was listed as endangered in 

1984. The plant is a grayish or bluish-green low-lying shrub with small 

leaves and white flowers, and turns bright red in the fall. At the time of the 

listing, there were five known populations in two south Texas counties and 

in Mexico, with an estimated total of 1,500 individual plants. However, a 6-

year study of this species resulted in the discovery of about 9 million plants 

in 58 populations in the United States and four populations in Mexico. FWS 

proposed delisting the species in 2003 and anticipates finalizing the 

delisting in 2006. FWS officials attribute the lengthy delisting process to the 

lack of staff—the lead botanist for the species resigned about 2 years ago 

and has not been replaced. 

Threats FWS officials report that they initially believed the primary threats to 

Johnston’s frankenia were its low numbers, low reproductive potential, 

narrow range, and habitat modification by land management practices that 

included overgrazing, root plowing, and planting non-native grasses. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 66 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

However, at the time of the listing, limited data were available for this 

species, partially because the species occurs primarily on privately owned 

land that was not readily accessible; also, little focused research had been 

conducted on the species. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS officials approved a recovery plan for Johnston’s frankenia in 1988, 

and attribute the proposed delisting to the achievement of the recovery 

plan’s goals. A key task in the recovery plan was educating landowners and 

gaining their cooperation in order to allow study and monitoring of the 

species (through voluntary agreements) on private land. A botanist with 

the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spent 2 years building trust and 

establishing working relationships with landowners, and an additional 4 

years on monitoring research. This work led to the discovery of millions of 

other plants. Other important recovery tasks included conducting studies 

on the species’ ecology and reproduction. Some of these studies revealed 

that, while the species’ reproductive potential is lower than many flowering 

plant species, the frankenia appears to be adapted to the arid climate and 

saline soils it inhabits, and can use sporadic rainfall to germinate quickly.

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials report that recovery efforts for Johnston’s frankenia have 

cost over $250,000. FWS estimated its expenditures at about $200,000; the 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spent about $30,000; The Nature 

Conservancy spent about $4,000; and Texas State University spent about 

$20,000. FWS contracted with Texas State University to complete three 

recovery tasks: (1) reproductive biology studies; (2) ecological studies, 

including analyses of soil and the effects of land management practices; 

and (3) a geographical information system project to assess threats to the 

species.

Papery Whitlow-Wort The papery whitlow-wort (Paronychia chartacea) was listed as threatened 

in 1987 and, at the time, was only known to inhabit south-central peninsular 

Florida. In 1991, a new subspecies (Paronychia chartacea minima) was 

discovered in the Florida panhandle; this subspecies is also considered as 

threatened under the 1987 listing action. The papery whitlow-wort is a 

short-lived herb with yellowish green branches and small cream-colored to 

greenish colored flowers. It grows close to the ground and forms small 

mats in disturbed, open, sandy sites such as road rights-of-way, recently 

cleared high pineland areas, fire lanes, and trails. 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 67 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Threats FWS officials report that the primary threat to the papery whitlow-wort is 

habitat loss due to residential, industrial, and commercial (including citrus) 

development. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the papery whitlow-wort and 18 

other Florida scrub and high pineland plant species in June 1996. The 

recovery actions identified in the recovery plan were primarily additional 

monitoring and protection of habitat. The south-central Florida subspecies 

may soon be delisted because land needed to accommodate this species 

was acquired or protected, and needed prescribed fire plans were 

implemented in 2000. Delisting the south-central Florida subspecies is 

pending, due to a lack of funding and FWS’s evaluation of an upcoming 

study on the status of numerous Florida plant species (including the papery 

whitlow-wort). FWS officials report that they hope to delist the plant by 

2010. 

FWS officials report that the remaining efforts to delist the Florida 

panhandle subspecies include reviewing land management agencies’ 

prescribed fire plans and practices for actions that could potentially harm 

the papery whitlow-wort. FWS officials said that the species has benefited 

from some conservation efforts, but it is not nearly as close to delisting as 

the central Florida subspecies. 

Cost and Partnerships FWS officials report that FWS recovery expenditures for the papery 

whitlow-wort have been minimal—about $19,000 from fiscal years 2001 

through 2003. FWS did not have recovery expenditure data from its 

partners. The species has benefited from state funding and Section 6 funds 

to recover several other endangered species that share its habitat and are 

included in the multi-species recovery plan. Partners in recovery efforts for 

the papery whitlow-wort include the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, the Florida Division of Forestry, The Nature 

Conservancy, the Archbold Biological Station, and Princeton University 

(which is conducting the study on Floridian plant species). These partners 

have worked on restoration of the natural habitat, fire management, 

surveying, and demographic research. 

Truckee Barberry The Truckee barberry (Berberis sonnei) was listed as endangered in 1979. 

The plant is a small evergreen shrub originally thought to exist only near 

the Truckee River in California. However, a 1993 study reclassified the 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 68 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

plant and included it as part of a much more prevalent species. The 

Truckee barberry was delisted in 2003. 

Threats The threat, at the time of listing, was that only one known Truckee barberry 

population existed. This population was located on private property. 

Role of Recovery Plan FWS approved a recovery plan for the Truckee barberry in 1984. The 

objectives included protecting the only known population, surveying for 

other populations, and establishing new ones. Additionally, because FWS 

had only limited information on this plant’s biology, the plan included 

actions for genetics research to clarify the relationship of the species to 

similar species, like the Berberis repens. These steps were critical to 

determining that the species was not unique but rather a part of a more 

common species. 

Costs and Partnerships FWS only had expenditure information for the delisting process, which 

took 3 years and about $33,000. 

Uinta Basin Hookless 

Cactus

The Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) was listed as 

threatened in 1979. The Uinta Basin hookless cactus is a spherical to 

cylindrical, spiny succulent that commonly grows from 2 to 3 inches in 

diameter and 2 to 6 inches in height. It occurs on rocky surfaces on river 

terrace deposits and lower mesa slopes between elevations of 4,500 to 

6,000 feet along the upper Colorado and Gunnison Rivers in western 

Colorado, and the Green River in northeast Utah. At the time of listing, 

FWS reported that there were approximately 15,000 individual plants. 

Threats FWS officials report that the primary threat to the Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus is the demand for energy development in its habitat, which is 

primarily BLM land and the Uinta and Ouray reservations of the Northern 

Ute Tribe. According to the recovery plan, demand for energy development 

increased dramatically around the time the species was listed in 1979, and 

then decreased by 1990 when the recovery plan was issued. However, FWS 

officials said that the demand has increased again over the last several 

years, and that significant oil and gas development is in progress; additional 

development within the species habitat is pending. Additional threats 

include other development for highways, housing, and commercial 

purposes; recreation; and trampling by livestock. The species is a desirable 

horticultural specimen and, as such, is illegally collected.
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 69 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Recovery Plan Role FWS approved the Uinta Basin hookless cactus recovery plan in 1990. 

However, according to FWS officials, the recovery plan has not been fully 

implemented because it competes with many other species for funding. 

Needed actions outlined in the recovery plan include achieving a total 

population of 30,000 individuals, with at least 2,000 individuals in a 

minimum of six separate populations; protecting land to provide for longterm, undisturbed habitat; and conducting taxonomic studies on the 

species. However, FWS officials stated that funding levels have only 

allowed for completing a taxonomic study. FWS officials report they have 

been involved in Section 7 consultations with BLM concerning oil and gas 

leases affecting the cactus, and there have been adverse effect 

determinations. FWS officials are currently working with BLM and oil and 

gas companies to minimize the loss of cacti due to energy development in 

its habitat. FWS officials report that the cactus could be delisted in 10 to 20 

years, assuming adequate funding is received and habitat protection 

measures are implemented.

Costs and Partnerships FWS officials report that they cannot provide an accurate recovery cost 

estimate because comprehensive cost data do not exist. FWS estimated 

that, for the last 2 years, its field offices in Utah and Colorado have spent 

between $30,000 and $40,000 annually on the Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

and other plant species in the area, mostly for Section 7 consultations with 

BLM and monitoring. FWS has also worked, on a limited basis, with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and some conservation groups, but did not have 

any expenditure information for those entities.

Virginia Round-Leaf Birch The Virginia round-leaf birch (Betula uber) was listed as endangered in 

1978 and downlisted to threatened in 1994. It was the first tree protected 

under the Endangered Species Act. The Virginia round-leaf birch grows to 

about 40 feet tall and has dark bark and distinctive rounded leaves. It lives 

for about 50 years, and produces large quantities of seeds about every 5 

years—a survival strategy that discourages seed eaters. The birch needs 

continually moist, well-drained mineral-rich soil that is largely free of 

debris so seeds can reach the ground and germinate. It also needs open 

forest canopies to allow seedlings to get sunlight. The species was thought 

to be extinct until 1975, when 41 trees were discovered in the Cressy Creek 

area of Smyth County in southwestern Virginia.

Threats FWS officials report that most of the Virginia round-leaf birch population 

occurs on Forest Service land and that the primary threats to the species 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 70 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

when it was listed were its reproductive characteristics and distinct habitat 

needs. For example, studies have shown that seed viability is significantly 

lower in the round-leaf birch than in other dark-bark birches in the Cressy 

Creek area. Reproduction is also limited by long distances between pollen 

sources. Periodic droughts and floods, and herbivory (mostly by deer and 

rabbits), are also threats. Additionally, in the 1980s, vandalism by collectors 

led to the loss of numerous individual trees—10 of the original 41 trees, 30 

seedlings that had grown as a result of Forest Service recovery actions, and 

81 greenhouse seedlings grown by the National Arboretum. FWS officials 

report that the Virginia round-leaf birch does not currently have any 

imminent threats, however, due to its limited geographic range, it faces 

challenges such as drought and occasional flooding. 

Role of Recovery Plan Most of the Virginia round-leaf birch population is located in the Jefferson 

National Forest in southwestern Virginia. According to FWS officials, the 

Forest Service approved a management plan for the Virginia round-leaf 

birch in 1976, and FWS approved a recovery plan in 1982 with revisions in 

1985 and 1990. FWS reported that several actions in the recovery plan have 

been especially effective for recovering the species—creating small 

openings in the canopy to allow sunlight to reach seedlings, removing plant 

debris from around the existing trees to allow their seeds to reach the soil 

and germinate, enclosing all the trees with chicken wire to protect them 

from herbivory, and, to stop vandalism by collectors, growing several trees 

in captivity and distributing seedlings to the public. Some actions taken by 

the Forest Service have also been important for the species, and were 

taken before the recovery plan was in place. Specifically, the Forest Service 

fenced the two mature trees that occurred in the Jefferson National Forest 

and conducted soil disturbance activities to encourage seed germination. 

FWS is awaiting the results of a status review of the species, which should 

be complete in 2006, before pursuing delisting. FWS hopes to begin the 

delisting process in the next 2 to 3 years for the species and have it delisted 

by about 2015.

Cost and Partnerships FWS officials report that they cannot provide a cost estimate for recovery 

expenditures because most of the recovery activities were completed in the 

1980s and much of the documentation is no longer available. The Forest 

Service and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

which listed the species as endangered at the state level in 1979, have led 

recovery efforts. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

provided funding for cultivation of birch seedlings for distribution to 

arboreta, botanical gardens, and the public. Other partners include the 

National Arboretum, which coordinated the distribution of seedlings to the 
Appendix II

Information on 31 Select Species

Page 71 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

public; various conservation organizations; universities; and private 

entities. 
Page 72 GAO-06-730 Endangered Species Recovery

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiI

(360704)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548