Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Select Species
Published: 2006-09-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Many factors affect the length of time it takes to recover the 31 species GAO reviewed. Specifically, 19 of these species have been recently delisted (removed from the list of endangered and threatened species) or are likely to be delisted within the next 25 years either because (1) they faced a primary threat that has been or is being mitigated; (2) they were found to be more prevalent than biologists thought at the time they were listed and/or habitats have been secured for the species; or (3) they are expected to respond relatively quickly to recovery efforts because, for example, they reproduce quickly in the presence of good habitat. The remaining 12 species are much farther away from being delisted, and for some, recovery is uncertain. Some of these species are not expected to recover for many decades because they respond relatively slowly to recovery efforts, for example, because they reproduce slowly. Recovery for the remaining species is uncertain either because their habitat is difficult to protect, or because not enough is known about the threats facing the species or how to mitigate those threats. Recovery plans have played an important role in the recovery efforts of nearly all of the species GAO reviewed by identifying many of the actions the services' biologists deemed most important to the species' recovery. The services' biologists report that these actions have contributed, at least in part, to the progress made in recovering these species. For example, recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker is dependent on having sufficient habitat--the species nests in cavities that they peck out of old pine trees, but logging largely eliminated these trees from the woodpecker's range. The recovery plan identifies measures to protect the habitat, including land acquisition and conservation agreements with landowners, as well as steps to provide artificial nest boxes until pines mature enough to provide natural habitat for the birds. The services' biologists told us that these actions have significantly improved this species' prospects for recovery. However, for about one-half of the species GAO reviewed, actions beyond those in the recovery plans also played an important role in progress toward the species' recovery. For example, the banning of the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972--a year before the Endangered Species Act was enacted--has been critical to recovery of the bald eagle.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
While the act has many provisions that could be evaluated, one of the most  important measures of its success is the number of species that have  “recovered,” or improved to the point that they no longer need the act’s  protection. Since the act’s inception in 1973, about 1,300 domestic species  have been placed on the list of threatened and endangered species, but only a few have been removed (delisted). 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. 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. Our  assessment of the recovery efforts and description of the role of recovery  plans in those efforts is based primarily on species’ recovery plans, Federal  Register notices associated with the species, and information provided by  biologists at the services that are responsible for recovering the species we  reviewed. We obtained, from FWS and NMFS biologists, estimated time  frames for delisting many of the species we reviewed. It is important to  note that these estimates were based on the assumption that needed  actions would take place, even though funding may not be available to  conduct these actions, or the actions may be out of the services’ control.  Consequently, the estimates provided should be considered best-case  scenarios. Salmon, steelhead, and the desert tortoise were excluded from  our analyses because we have issued comprehensive reports on these  species. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is to conserve  threatened and endangered species, and the ecosystems upon which they  depend. The act defines conservation as the recovery of threatened and  endangered species so that they no longer need the protective measures  afforded by the act. An endangered species is a species facing extinction  throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range; threatened species are  those likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The act  requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish, in the Federal Register, a  list of species determined to be threatened or endangered. Included in the  definition of species are subspecies of animals and plants, and DPSs of  vertebrate species.
The act generally requires the services to develop recovery plans for the  conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species, unless the  services determine that a plan will not promote their conservation. The act  directs the services, to the maximum extent practicable, to incorporate in  each recovery plan (1) a description of site-specific management actions  necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the  species; (2) objective, measurable criteria that will result in a  determination that the species can be removed from the list of threatened  and endangered species (i.e., delisted); and (3) estimates of the time and  cost required to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal.
The services develop and implement recovery plans, among other actions,  to reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its long-term  survival. To do this, recovery plans aim to identify threats to the species’  survival and the actions needed to mitigate those threats. A recovery plan  may include a variety of methods and procedures to recover listed species,  such as habitat acquisition and restoration to prevent extinction or further  decline, and other on-the-ground activities for managing and monitoring  endangered and threatened species. The services’ officials also told us that  recovery plans are important for communicating needed actions to other  federal agencies, state and local agencies, researchers, industry, private  landowners, and others, because the services often depend on other  entities to implement recovery actions. For example, in many cases, FWS  does not have jurisdiction to implement recovery actions on lands  occupied by endangered species, which is important because loss of  habitat is often the principal cause of species’ declines. Recovery plans can  take years or decades to fully implement, depending on the needs of the  species covered by the plan. As of May 2006, the services had approved 580  recovery plans covering about 1,080 species (or about 83 percent) of the  1,300 domestic species protected by the act.
Once a species recovers, it can be delisted. 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.
In addition, the act requires that the services report biennially to certain  congressional committees on efforts to develop and implement recovery  plans. The services implement this requirement through separate biennial  reports to Congress. FWS’s reports satisfy the act’s reporting requirement  by including a statistic called “recovery achieved.” The recovery achieved  statistic is meant to estimate the extent to which the recovery objectives  for each species have been achieved and reflects the species’ overall  progress towards recovery; it is not the proportion of discrete actions in  the recovery plan that has been completed. It is expressed as a percentage  range—0 to 25 percent, 26 to 50 percent, 51 to 75 percent, or 76 to 100  percent. The FWS report includes this statistic for species under FWS’s  jurisdiction, as well as for those managed jointly with NMFS. NMFS’s  biennial reports to Congress do not include a recovery achieved statistic,  but rather a narrative description of efforts to implement recovery plans.  Additionally, the act requires FWS to submit an annual report to Congress  on federal expenditures for the conservation of all endangered or  threatened species, as well as expenditures by states receiving federal  financial assistance for such conservation activities.
section_title: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time to Recover Certain Threatened and Endangered Species
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Delisted or Likely to Be Delisted within the Next 25 Years
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Primary Threats Have Been, or Are Being, Mitigated for Some Species
paragraphs: Eight of the species we reviewed are recovered, or are nearing recovery,  because the primary threats facing the species have been, or are being,  mitigated. These species are likely to be delisted within the next 10 years.
The bald eagle is one example. The primary threat to the eagle’s survival  was the widespread use of DDT, an insecticide that caused thin egg shells  and reproductive failure. Thus, although there were other steps that needed  to be taken (primarily addressing loss of important habitat), the banning of  DDT in 1972 was critical to achieving the bald eagle’s recovery. FWS  reports that the eagle is recovered and has recently proposed delisting the  species. Another example is the Magazine Mountain shagreen—a land snail  found only on the north side of Magazine Mountain in Arkansas. The  primary threat to this species was human use of its habitat or areas close to  its habitat. Specifically, the Department of Defense considered using  Magazine Mountain for military exercises, and the state of Arkansas  proposed building a visitor’s center and related facilities on the summit of  the mountain—the highest peak in the state. After the snail was listed,  however, the Department of Defense withdrew its plans for military  exercises in the area, and the visitor’s center and associated facilities were  designed and built so that potential impacts from construction and  operation have been mitigated. FWS biologists told us that the snail’s  population is stable, but that a proposed 3-year study to gather additional  biological information about the species needs to be completed before the  species can be proposed for delisting. Table 1 summarizes some key details  about the eight species.
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.)
section_title: Some Species Are More Prevalent Than Initially Thought and/or the Species’ Habitat Is Being Protected
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Some Species Are Likely to Respond Quickly to Recovery Efforts
paragraphs: Five of the species we reviewed are likely to be recovered within the next  25 years, because they are expected to respond relatively quickly to  focused recovery efforts with many stakeholders and significant resources.  For example, the Rio Grande silvery minnow, a fish that rarely exceeds 4  inches, was historically found in the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers.  However, habitat degradation restricted the fish to 5 percent of its historic  range, all in the Rio Grande. To recover the minnow and other endangered  species in the area (including the southwestern willow flycatcher, which is  also reviewed in this report), the river is being restored to a more natural  state. The restoration will transform the deeply channeled river with high  banks that isolate the river from the surrounding floodplain to a more  gently flowing river with broader, lower banks that will provide eddies and  slack water for juvenile minnows. To achieve this, a myriad of property  owners and water-rights interests must be coordinated. Specifically, the  Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program—a  broad coalition of federal, tribal, and local governments; property owners;  and others—is leading efforts to restore the river. Efforts are underway to  physically manipulate the river banks, and the Bureau of Reclamation and  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are manipulating the river’s flow to  create floods that reconnect the river with the surrounding floodplain. FWS  is introducing captively-bred minnows to increase the population size. FWS  biologists report that manipulating the river’s flow regime is an effective  way to create habitat, and that minnow populations increase rapidly when  provided with good habitat. Table 3 summarizes some key details about the  minnow and four other species that are responding quickly, or expected to  respond quickly, to recovery actions.
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.
section_title: Factors Affecting the Species We Reviewed That Are Likely Far from Recovery
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Some Species Respond Slowly to Recovery Efforts
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Some Species’ Habitats Are Difficult to Protect
paragraphs: Recovery efforts for five of the species we reviewed are far from complete  because FWS is unable to protect the habitat necessary to recover these  species. For example, the recovery plan for the Florida panther calls for  three viable, self-sustaining populations—which must each include at least  240 panthers to maintain genetic diversity. However, as of 2005, there is  currently only one population estimated at 76 panthers; its genetic diversity  is being augmented by a closely related subspecies found in Texas. The  habitat this small population currently relies on is at its carrying capacity  and is declining by about one percent per year because of housing and  citrus development. FWS biologists report that, although it is biologically  feasible to recover the panther, they do not believe it is likely this will occur  because of the lack of public support for expanding the current population  and establishing additional populations—actions that rely on additional  suitable habitat being available to the panther. The lack of public support  stems largely from fears of the animal and predation on livestock and pets.
The Socorro isopod, a one-fourth-inch long member of the crustacean  family, is another example of FWS being unable to protect the habitat  necessary to recover a species, but for a different reason than that of the  Florida panther. The only wild population of isopods is found in New  Mexico, and lives in the pipes of an abandoned bathhouse that was built to  take advantage of the natural hot spring the species historically relied on.  The bathhouse and the water rights to the spring that feeds the bathhouse  are privately owned. The recovery plan for the isopod calls for an  agreement with the property owner to protect the species—either an  easement, lease, or outright purchase of the property. However, FWS  biologists told us that the property owner has not consented to such an  agreement, although he has taken some actions to protect the species, such  as repairing a fence surrounding the bathhouse that helps protect it from  vandals. However, without the property owner’s cooperation, FWS cannot  secure the habitat essential to ensure the survival of the species and thus  delist it. Table 5 summarizes some key details for these five species.
The Florida panther and the black-footed ferret were included in our  sample because there was a relatively high level of federal and state  expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal year 2003, and each  species had at least one full-time staff member dedicated to its recovery.  The other three species—the Ash Meadows sunray, the papery whitlow- wort, and the Socorro isopod—were included in our sample because FWS  reported them as having between 76 and 100 percent of their recovery  achieved in the fiscal year 2001–2002 recovery report to Congress;  however, as discussed above, it is unclear when these species will be  delisted.
section_title: Key Information Is Lacking about the Threats Some Species Face
paragraphs: FWS cannot predict whether or when a successful recovery is possible for  the remaining three species we reviewed because it does not know enough  about the threats facing the species, or how to mitigate those threats. These  three species could spend more than 50 years on the endangered species  list. The Indiana bat is one example. This species has been found  throughout much of the eastern United States. The bats winter in caves or  mines, called hibernacula, that satisfy their highly specific need for cold  (but not freezing) temperatures during hibernation.  The fact that they  hibernate in a relatively small number of caves suggests that very few caves  meet their habitat requirements. FWS biologists originally thought that the  only major threat to the bat was anthropomorphic changes to its  hibernacula. For example, gates installed to control human access to caves  have been documented as major causes of Indiana bat declines because  they prevent bat access or do not allow proper air flow; human  disturbances in caves with hibernating bats have also been found to  adversely affect the species. Yet despite actions to protect the hibernacula  and remove these threats, population levels have not rebounded,  suggesting that the species faces additional threats when not hibernating.  The additional threats are not well known because the species is difficult to  study—it is nocturnal, widely dispersed during the summer, and roosts in  trees with exfoliating bark. This latter point is problematic because  climbing these trees (for example, to conduct studies on the species) could  destroy the habitat. Table 6 summarizes some key details for these three  species.
We included the Ash Meadows gumplant and the Spring-loving centaury in  our sample because they were reported to have 76 to 100 percent of their  recovery achieved in the fiscal year 2001–2002 recovery report to Congress.  However, FWS biologists believe that a recently identified threat to these  two species may result in the recovery-achieved statistic for these species  being lowered in the next recovery report to Congress.  The third species— the Indiana bat—was included in our sample because of the relatively high  level of federal and state expenditures on the species as reported for fiscal  year 2003.
section_title: Recovery Plans Play an Important Role in Recovering Certain Threatened and Endangered Species
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Implementation of Recovery Plan Actions Has Been the Primary Driver in Recovering 13 Species
paragraphs: Thirteen of the species we reviewed are recovering, in large part due to the  implementation of actions in the species’ recovery plans. Although not all  of these species are nearing recovery, the success that these species have  had is attributed primarily to the recovery actions identified in the species’  recovery plans. For example, the red-cockaded woodpecker, which is  found in 11 states from Florida to Texas to Virginia, is expected to recover  largely as a result of implementation of actions in its recovery plan. The  species nests in old pine trees and, by creating and maintaining wounds in  the tree that exude resin, exploits the ability of these pines to produce large  amounts of resin. The resin creates an effective barrier against climbing  snakes and prevents nest predation. The woodpecker requires large pine  trees because it excavates a cavity within the heartwood (center) of the  tree. The diameter of the heartwood must be large enough to contain the  entire cavity—otherwise the woodpecker could be entrapped by the resin.  The woodpecker requires pines at least 60 to 80 years old because the  higher incidence of heartwood decay greatly facilitates cavity excavation.  Excavation can take many years, and averages from 6 to 13 years  depending on the type of tree being excavated. The species declined  significantly because logging eliminated much of the woodpecker’s habitat  of old-growth pine. FWS biologists report that, although the woodpecker  was listed in 1970, not enough was known about the species’ biology to  develop the recovery actions necessary to bring about the bird’s recovery  until the mid 1990s. Three of the most significant efforts that have helped  the woodpecker were in the plan—prescribed burns have helped develop  suitable habitat, artificial nesting cavities have provided a stop-gap  measure until existing pine trees mature, and translocation of birds to new  locations with suitable habitat has expanded the population. The plan also  identified measures to protect existing woodpecker habitat on private land,  for example, through conservation agreements. Since the development and  implementation of the recovery plan, woodpecker populations have been  steadily increasing. Table 7 summarizes some key details for these 13  species.
section_title: Recovery for 17 Species is Driven by Both the Recovery Plan and Other Factors
paragraphs: For 17 of the species we reviewed, biologists report that, while recovery  plans played important roles, events outside of the plans have also been  critical to the species’ recovery efforts. In some cases, historic and legal  events have been critical to a species’ recovery. For example, the whooping  crane benefited from protections that occurred before endangered species  legislation was in existence. In the early 1900s, it was recognized that the  crane’s population was decreasing. The major cause of this decline was  thought to be hunting and, as wetlands were drained and turned into  farmland, habitat loss. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916 prohibited  hunting of the crane (and most other migratory birds in the United States).  The crane also benefited from the creation of two protected areas—one  specifically to protect the crane, the other to protect another species that  shared the crane’s habitat. In 1922, Canada created a national park to  protect a small herd of bison and the crane was later found to summer  there. In 1937, the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas was created to  protect cranes that were currently wintering there. While these actions  were critical to protecting the crane and its habitat, the population  remained low and did not exceed 100 until the winter of 1983–84.   Accordingly, the 1980 recovery plan set forth many additional recovery  actions that have greatly helped the species, such as introducing captively- bred cranes into the wild. Perhaps the best-known of these recovery  actions is the use of ultralight aircraft to teach cranes migration routes  between summer and winter habitats.
Similarly, the Borax Lake chub also benefited from several events not  included in its recovery plan. The chub is a fish, typically less than 2 inches  long, found in Borax Lake and adjacent wetlands in arid southeastern  Oregon.  The lake is fed by several thermal springs that were vulnerable to  geothermal development. The immediate threat was removed when the  energy exploration company speculating in the area abandoned its plans to  pursue development of a hydrogeothermal facility in the Borax Lake area.  These actions were not part of the recovery plan but were critical to  protecting the Borax Lake chub. They were supplemented by  implementation of a key action called for in the recovery plan—purchasing  the privately owned land surrounding the lake.
For other species, the discovery of new populations has played an  important role in their recovery. For example, Johnston’s frankenia, a small  perennial shrub found in south Texas and an adjacent area in northeastern  Mexico, was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1984. At the time  of listing, there were only five known populations in Texas—all on  privately-owned lands. However, many private lands had not been surveyed  for the species because of resistance from the landowners. A key action in  the recovery plan was working with landowners to gain access to their  lands to conduct monitoring. Once this was accomplished, the plant was  found to be more prevalent than thought at the time of listing, and FWS  proposed delisting the species in 2003. While the discovery of previously  unknown populations is a fortunate event that cannot be prescribed by a  recovery plan, monitoring and surveying to determine species’ abundance  and distribution can be included in a recovery plan. Table 8 summarizes  some key details for these 17 species.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided Interior and Commerce with a draft of this report for review  and comment. Interior generally agreed with the information presented in  this report; its letter is presented in appendix III. Additionally, Interior  provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the report, as  appropriate. Commerce declined to provide a general assessment of the  draft because the report does not contain recommendations. Commerce  did, however, provide technical comments that we have incorporated into  the report, as appropriate.
We performed our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A  description of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
As discussed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents  of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and interested congressional  committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  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.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. 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. This was the most recent report available at the time we  selected our species. It provides expenditure data on all listed species,  regardless of which service has primary responsibility. We excluded  salmon, steelhead, and the desert tortoise from this sample, even though  they had relatively high expenditures, because we have issued comprehensive reports on these species.We relied on FWS officials to  identify species that had at least one full-time staff member devoted to  recovery efforts. NMFS officials told us that their staff work in recovery  teams, and that having a full-time staff member dedicated to recovery  efforts would not be a good measure of the resources the agency was  devoting to recovery of the species. We identified 40 species that met these  three criteria.
Next, because of time and resource constraints, we took several steps to  reduce the 40 species to a more manageable number. We prioritized species  for review by generally selecting all of the species that satisfied at least two  of the three criteria, and species that were nearing recovery and had  relatively low federal and state expenditures (in order to understand how  species can achieve recovery with relatively low expenditures). This  process yielded 20 species for review. As agreed with your offices, we  reviewed all 20 of these species and as many of the remaining 20 species as  time and resources permitted.  To prioritize this second group of 20  species, we excluded certain species from review based on a variety of  factors. For example, we chose to exclude species that were similar, or had  similar habitats, to other species that were already included for review. For  instance, we excluded some populations of the gray wolf from our sample  because we had included the western Great Lakes population of the gray  wolf in our first group of 20 species for review. We also excluded the  Louisiana black bear because of the additional demands that Hurricane  Katrina placed on local FWS staff. This process reduced the second group  of species for review down to nine.
While our selection process yielded 29 species for review, we ultimately  reported on 31 species because 2 of the species we selected—the Papery  whitlow-wort and the Steller sea lion—consist of subspecies or distinct  population segments (DPS) , and we included these in our review. FWS has  primary responsibility for all the species we reviewed except for three—the  northern right whale and the eastern and western DPSs of the Steller sea  lion—for which NMFS has primary responsibility.
To identify factors affecting the length of time to recover the 31 selected  species and describe the role that recovery plans have played in recovering  these species, we reviewed each species’ recovery plan and Federal  Register documents associated with each species’ listing and delisting  actions, as appropriate. We also interviewed the services’ officials at  headquarters, and the services’ biologists designated as the primary  contact for each species’ recovery effort, and obtained additional  documentation, as necessary.
We performed our work between September 2005 and August 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Table 9 lists the species included in our nonprobability sample and the  criteria used to select them.
section_title: Information on 31 Select Species
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Mammals
subsections: section_title: Black-Footed Ferret
paragraphs: The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) was listed as endangered in  1967, when only a small population remained in South Dakota. By the early  1970s, the species was thought to be extinct in the wild. However, a small  population of black-footed ferrets was discovered in Wyoming in 1981.  Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced into Arizona, Colorado,  Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Chihuahua, Mexico.  Black- footed ferrets are mostly nocturnal, solitary carnivores that feed on prairie  dogs and live in prairie dog burrows. As such, black-footed ferret  populations closely correspond to prairie dog populations.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS approved a recovery plan for the black-footed ferret in June 1978,  revised it in August 1988, and is now revising it again. The plan seeks to  ensure the species’ survival by maintaining a captive population and  increasing free-ranging populations to the widest possible distribution  across the ferrets’ historical range. FWS officials reported that the captive  breeding program is the most important and expensive recovery activity for  the ferret. FWS started with 18 captured black-footed ferrets in 1987. Since  then, the ferrets have produced more than 5,000 offspring—over 2,000 of  which have been released into the wild.
FWS reports that, although the number of black-footed ferrets has  increased substantially, recovery of the species remains a challenge. While  the captive breeding program has worked well, reintroduction efforts have  had mixed success. Two populations in South Dakota and one in Wyoming  are thought to be self-sustaining, and substantial progress is being made at  two other sites. However, drought and plague have affected population  stability at other recovery areas. Specifically, a drought in South Dakota  last year caused prairie dog populations in a section of the Buffalo Gap  National Grasslands, where the black-footed ferret had been successfully  reintroduced, to disperse onto adjacent private lands. Thousands of acres  of public and private lands were subsequently baited with poison by private  landowners to eliminate the prairie dogs. Additionally, FWS and several  partners are currently pursuing a plague vaccine for the ferret that appears  promising.
According to FWS officials, the technology and expertise to fully recover  the ferret exists; they estimate that they could delist the species by 2025.  However, the officials note that sufficient commitment from federal  agencies, states, and private landowners to restore and protect sufficient  habitat for wild populations does not exist and, as a result, the ferret faces  an uncertain future.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Columbian White-Tailed Deer (Douglas County Population)
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: An FWS official reports that the primary threats to the Columbian white- tailed deer were habitat loss and hunting (both legal and illegal).
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Florida Panther
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: The Florida panther faces several threats, including habitat loss, low  genetic viability, and disease. The habitat that supports the only wild  population is already at its carrying capacity and is shrinking by about 1  percent annually. Habitat loss is due to intensified urbanization, residential  development, conversion to agriculture, water management, and mining  and mineral exploitation. Because there are so few wild panthers in  Florida, the species has suffered a loss of genetic variability—which often  causes diminished health, such as heart and reproductive defects. The  panther is also susceptible to diseases such as panleukopenia (decreased  white blood cells), feline calicivirus, and pseudorabies. Any or all of these  may increase kitten mortality and seriously reduce adult panther vitality. In  2003 and 2004, 5 of the 87 known wild Florida panthers were lost to feline  leukemia. FWS officials report that a lack of public support, based on fear  of the animal and its predation on livestock and pets, is an obstacle to  reintroducing the Florida panther into other sites in its historic range and,  ultimately, recovering the species.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: Most recovery tasks for the panther are implemented by the Florida  Panther Interagency Committee, which was organized in 1986. This  committee consists of several agencies including FWS, the National Park  Service, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the  Florida Department of Environmental Protection. FWS officials were  unable to provide recovery expenditure data on panther recovery, but  estimate that Florida state agencies bear about 90 percent of the costs,  while the National Park Service and FWS account for about 7 percent and 3  percent, respectively. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation  Commission, with help from the National Park Service, has played a major  role in genetics, radio collaring, and monitoring activities.
section_title: Gray Wolf (Western Great Lakes Recovery Population)
paragraphs: The gray wolf was listed as endangered in 1967.  Gray wolves weigh about  50 to 100 pounds and are usually a mixed gray color. The gray wolf has had  a complex relationship with the law. When the act first took effect in 1973,  two populations of gray wolves were “grandfathered” onto the list of  threatened and endangered species—one in Minnesota and Michigan, and  one in the northern Rocky Mountains. In 1976, two more populations of  gray wolves that ranged in the southwestern United States were added to  the list. To update the taxonomy of the species based on new information  and address other issues, FWS issued a new listing in 1978 that classified  the gray wolf as a single species that was endangered throughout the lower  48 states, except for a population in Minnesota that was listed as  threatened. Even though the gray wolf was listed as a single species, FWS  still recognized separate populations for managing recovery efforts. (FWS  officials later determined that wolves that historically occurred in 16  southeastern states were actually a separate species—the red wolf.)  For  this report, we evaluated recovery actions for the western Great Lakes  population; other populations are the western (which includes the Rocky  Mountains) and the southwestern populations.
The historic range of the western Great Lakes population (Canis lupus  lycaon) once included most of the eastern United States and southeastern  Canada, but its present U.S. range only includes parts of Michigan,  Minnesota, and Wisconsin. FWS officials believe that this population is  ready to be delisted. However, its delisting is constrained because it is not  listed as a separate entity—it is part of the larger gray wolf listing. To  clarify the current status of the various populations of gray wolves and to  delist the western Great Lakes population, FWS proposed a rule in 2000 to  (1) reclassify the gray wolf as “not listed” in 16 southeastern states that are  historic red wolf ranges; (2) establish a DPS for the western Great Lakes  population to be listed as threatened; (3) establish a DPS for the western  population to be listed as threatened; and (4) establish a DPS for the  southwestern population to be listed as endangered. While the rule was  finalized in 2003, FWS was sued for this action. In early 2005, courts ruled  that FWS’s action was arbitrary and capricious with regard to how they  grouped states into these four separate classifications. Therefore, the wolf  listing reverted to the prior listing action from 1978; this listing identifies  the gray wolf as endangered in 47 of the lower 48 states, and threatened in  Minnesota. To address the court’s concern with the prior delisting proposal,  FWS is addressing redesignation of the gray wolf on a population-by- population basis. In February 2006, FWS issued an advance notice of  proposed rulemaking to establish a Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and  delist it at the same time. Similarly, in March 2006, FWS officials proposed a  rule to create a western Great Lakes DPS and delist it at the same time.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: FWS officials report that the large number of entities involved in recovery  efforts for the gray wolf makes it impossible to estimate total expenditures.  FWS expenditures in fiscal year 2004 included almost $645,000–$140,000  for law enforcement; $60,000 for Section 7 consultations, mostly with the  U.S. Department of Agriculture; $55,000 for monitoring and research on  FWS refuges; and about $390,000 for the delisting process. The agriculture  and natural resources departments in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin  dedicate resources to help FWS enforce laws that protect the gray wolf.  Additionally, these states, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's  Wildlife Service and the nongovernmental organization Defenders of  Wildlife, fund and manage the livestock compensation programs. Public  education is conducted by a variety of additional nongovernmental  organizations, such as the International Wolf Center and the Timber Wolf  Alliance. Indian tribes also protect the gray wolf on their land.
section_title: Indiana Bat
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS officials approved a recovery plan for the Indiana bat in 1983, and  drafted a revision in March 1999. The 1999 revision, however, was not  approved because of differences of opinion among recovery team  members, and because FWS needed to address the significant public  comments received. A new draft revision is expected in 2006. FWS officials  report that an important recovery action that was identified in the 1983  recovery plan was to protect hibernacula. Actions have been implemented  to do this, including removing doors and walls in order to restore cave  temperatures to normal, gating hibernacula to control human access, and  allowing cave tours only during the summer when bats are not present.  However, FWS officials report that these efforts have not always resulted in  the expected increases in hibernating populations, suggesting that  additional, unknown threats affect the Indiana bat. Therefore, the draft  revision of the recovery plan is focusing heavily on research. FWS officials  report that they cannot estimate the Indiana bat’s potential for delisting  because they lack sufficient information about key aspects of the species’  life cycle and the threats it faces. It appears that the population is  increasing; however, it remains far below historic levels.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Northern Right Whale
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: NMFS approved a recovery plan for the northern right whale in 1991, and  revised it in 2005. Several important recovery actions included in the  recovery plan have been implemented for the species. In particular,  extensive effort is expended implementing surveillance and alert systems.  Specifically, aircraft surveys identify locations of right whales; these  locations are then shared with ship captains. On a number of occasions,  aircraft observers were able to contact and divert ships on direct courses  for right whales. In addition, NMFS and the U. S. Coast Guard jointly  developed a mandatory ship reporting system that became operational in  1999 for use in right whale habitat to help avoid ship strikes. Ships entering  right whale habitat are required to report their location, speed, and  direction; an automatic message replies with relevant whale location  information. U. S.Navy vessels also report information on ship strikes and  provide advisories to ship captains.
Other important actions that have been implemented from the recovery  plan include closing fishing areas during certain times, and buy-back  programs for commercial fishing operations in which old fishing gear is  purchased so it can be replaced with specially designed new gear that is  less hazardous to whales. NMFS is also proposing prohibiting float rope— used by fisherman between traps and fishing gear—which creates large  loops of line that can cause serious injury and mortality to right whales.  Although significant steps have been taken to reduce fishing gear  entanglements and ship strikes, NMFS officials acknowledge that  additional efforts are needed.  NMFS officials report that the northern right  whale has a high potential for recovery because the threats to the species  are known and manageable. However, they report that it will take more  than 50 years to meet recovery goals because right whales reproduce  infrequently.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Steller Sea Lion (Eastern and Western DPSs)
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS received over $167 million in appropriations  for Steller sea lion recovery efforts, with most of that provided in recent  years. Funding from 1992 through 2000 totaled just $18.5 million, compared  to about $149 million between 2001 and 2005—a substantial increase that  resulted from concerns about the potential impact of commercial fisheries  on the Steller sea lion’s decline.  The most significant expenditures for the  sea lion are on research. Approximately $40 million per year in 2001 and  2002 was dedicated to research; current funding for research is about $20  million per year.
Between 1992 and 2005, NMFS’s internal funding accounted for about one- third of the overall expenditures on sea lion recovery (about $52 million);  the remainder of the $167 million was distributed in the form of grants to  state government, fishery management councils, and the public. NMFS  activities include conducting Section 7 consultations, supporting the  recovery team, and implementing conservation actions and the Marine  Mammal Protection Act. NMFS officials report that partners have been  critical to sea lion recovery efforts and include state governments, fishery  management councils, and the public.
section_title: West Indian Manatee (Florida Population)
paragraphs: The Florida subspecies (Trichechus manatus latirostris) of the West  Indian manatee was listed in 1967. 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS approved a recovery plan for the manatee in 1980 and updated it in  1989, 1996, and 2001. FWS officials report that decreasing the number of  manatee deaths from watercraft collisions, entrapment in navigation locks,  and entanglement in fishing gear are the most important efforts  implemented as part of the recovery plan. Watercraft collisions, and related  manatee deaths and injuries, have been the focus of FWS’s and its partner’s  recovery activities for many years. At least 25 percent of manatee  mortalities are caused by collisions with watercraft, and many manatees  bear scars from these encounters. Federal and state managers have sought  to reduce the number of such deaths and injuries through law enforcement,  outreach, education, and the designation of manatee protection areas and  no-wake zones. This process is ongoing, and efforts continue to reduce the  number of such events.
To reduce entrapment in navigation locks, the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers (the Corps) and state water management agencies have  retrofitted water control structures and navigation locks with pressure  sensors or acoustic arrays—devices that use acoustic signals to detect the  presence of manatees—to allow trapped manatees to escape. In addition,  Florida has banned fishing nets and is considering seasonal closures of  fishing areas, which may help to reduce manatee mortality from  entanglement in fishing gear.
FWS officials report that they do not anticipate delisting the manatee in the  near future, although they are reviewing the species to determine if it  should be downlisted from endangered to threatened. The availability of  warm-water wintering sites remains a major challenge to manatee  recovery. Historically, the manatee relied on warm water from natural  springs; these springs are diminishing, however. Many warm-water sites  currently used by manatees are created artificially through discharges from  power plants and other industries. Approximately 585 manatees have been  counted at a single warm-water discharge site. If one of these plants closes  and the water cools, even temporarily, manatee mortalities could number  in the hundreds. Because manatees return to the same warm-water  wintering sites year after year, preserving these sites is critical to  successful recovery efforts—as is trying to attract manatees to more secure  sites. However, given their fidelity to a single wintering site, it will take a  long time to attract sufficient numbers of manatees to more secure  wintering sites.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Birds
subsections: section_title: Bald Eagle (Northern States Recovery Area)
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: While FWS has led efforts to implement the recovery plan for the bald  eagle, there are a wide variety of government partners in the northern  recovery area, including state forestry departments, the Forest Service, the  National Park Service, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of  Reclamation (BOR), and BLM. Nongovernmental partners include the  National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, the American Eagle  Foundation, forest product companies, and various bird watching  societies. Additionally, FWS officials report that grassroots volunteer  efforts and financial contributions from private parties played an important  role in the bald eagle’s recovery. According to FWS officials, annual  expenditures for the recovery and protection of the bald eagle, by public  and private agencies nationwide, have exceeded $1 million each year for  the past decade.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker  The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was listed as  endangered in 1970. It is a black and white bird about 8 inches long. On  occasion, the male displays red feathers on its head. The woodpecker  builds nest cavities in old-growth pine trees (70–120 years old) with wood  that is both soft enough for the woodpecker to make a nest cavity and large  enough for the cavity to be free of pine resin. The bird’s range includes  Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North  Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS approved a recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker in 1979,  and revised it in 1985 and 2003. FWS reports that the most effective  recovery actions are in the species’ recovery plan, and include (1) the  scheduling of prescribed burns every 2 to 3 years to ensure suitable  foraging habitat and prevent hardwood tree encroachment, (2) the building  of artificial cavities in suitable trees, and (3) the relocation of red-cockaded  woodpeckers into artificial cavities to establish new breeding populations.  Building artificial cavities is necessary because most existing trees are not  suitable for the red-cockaded woodpecker to carve cavities.
In addition, during the 1990s, FWS worked with timber companies and  other industries to determine the conditions under which these entities  would assist in recovery efforts for the species, given that some habitat and  potential habitat were privately owned. FWS officials report that  agreements with these entities have played an important role in the red- cockaded woodpecker’s recovery, and also provide private landowners  with economic and legal predictability regarding the uses of their land.
An FWS official reports that red-cockaded woodpecker populations have  steadily increased, from 4,600 groups in 1995 to 5,900 groups in 2005  (groups include a mating pair and other individuals who help build nesting  cavities.) While these increases are promising, the FWS official estimates  that, because of the time it takes for the woodpecker’s habitat to mature, it  will take at least 25 years to downlist the species and over 50 years to meet  the population and habitat requirements for delisting.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: An FWS official reports that more than 150 public and private entities have  been involved with recovery efforts; therefore, the complete cost of the  red-cockaded woodpecker’s recovery cannot be estimated. Some federal  agencies do have cost information—for example, the Department of  Defense reported spending about $62 million on the species from 1991  through 2003 (an average of about $5 million per year). The Forest Service  spent slightly more than $1 million each year for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.  In addition to federal agencies, FWS has agreements with many state  agencies and private entities in Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina  to implement recovery actions. Private entities involved include  International Paper, The Nature Conservancy, Plum Creek Timber  Company, Turner Endangered Species Fund, and private landowners.
section_title: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS approved a recovery plan for the southwestern willow flycatcher in  2002. FWS officials report that it took over 5 years to develop the recovery  plan due to the amount of biological information needed and the amount of  stakeholder involvement in the plan’s development. The recovery plan  reflects the contributions of over 240 stakeholders in seven states,  including state and federal agencies, private landowners, water  management organizations, and about 15 Native American tribes. The plan  identifies the actions that biologists believe are important for recovering  the species, with habitat restoration being the most critical action needed.  FWS officials report that, fortunately, flycatcher habitat can be developed  and occupied quickly, and officials expect this to aid in a relatively quick  recovery of the species. Although they are still early in the implementation  of the recovery plan and much work is needed, FWS is optimistic about  recovery of the species by 2020.
The flycatcher also benefits from being included in the Lower Colorado  River Multi-species Conservation Plan, which is a comprehensive plan for  more than 26 listed and unlisted species that occur in certain areas in the  lower Colorado River basin. Activities that are being implemented or are  planned under this conservation plan (fiscal year 2006 is the first full year  of implementation of this plan) include fish augmentation, research,  monitoring, and habitat restoration.
section_title: Cost and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Whooping Crane
paragraphs: The whooping crane (Grus americana) was listed as endangered in 1967.  Whooping cranes weigh about 15 pounds and reach about 5 feet in height.  They require a wetlands habitat with water about 18 inches deep, such as  coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows,  rivers, and agricultural fields. Whooping cranes live 20 to 30 years in the  wild and up to 30 to 40 years in captivity, making them a relatively long- lived species. Breeding pairs fledge chicks relatively late in their lives—at  about 5 to 7 years of age—and may only successfully fledge 5 to 10 chicks  during their lifetime. Breeding pairs return to the same summer and winter  nesting territories each year.
The whooping crane’s potential extinction was recognized as early as the  beginning of the twentieth century and, by 1941, there were only 15 or 16  known whooping cranes in the wild, all wintering in Texas.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: Progress recovering the whooping crane is attributed to implementation of  recovery plan actions, as well as actions taken before the species was even  listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Specifically,  several actions in the first half of the century helped prevent the extinction  of the whooping crane. Passage of the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty Act  ended legal hunting of the whooping crane; and the creation of a national  park in Canada in 1922 and a national wildlife refuge in Texas in 1937  preserved essential habitat. However, these actions were not sufficient to  protect the crane from extinction and it was eventually listed under the  Endangered Species Act.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the whooping crane in 1980, revised it in  1986 and 1994, and produced a new draft revision in 2005. Important  recovery plan actions include the breeding of cranes in captivity with the  intent to re-introduce the crane into the wild. Re-introducing the crane in  this way will establish multiple self-sustaining wild populations. FWS  officials report that implementing the recovery plan is challenging because  they do not have control over major threats such as development, river  flows, power line locations, and climate change. However, FWS officials  report that the status of the whooping crane is improving, and attribute this  improvement to the implementation of some of the recovery plan’s actions,  including increasing the population and providing additional protection at  the species’ summer and winter habitats. FWS and the Canadian Wildlife  Service are maintaining what is believed to be an historic growth rate for  the whooping crane—about 4.5 percent per year. FWS officials said that  doing more to address impacts from power lines along the crane’s  migratory routes is an important action remaining to help with recovery,  but that doing so is resource-intensive.
Currently, there are three whooping crane populations in the wild and  seven populations in captivity. One wild population nests in Canada and  winters in Texas, another migrates between Wisconsin and Florida, and the  third is a non-migratory population that lives in Florida. As of December  2005, the total population was estimated to be about 476 cranes:  341 in the  wild and 135 in captivity. FWS is hopeful about recovery of the species and  expects to downlist the whooping crane from endangered to threatened  around 2035.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Fishes
subsections: section_title: Borax Lake Chub
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: FWS reports that the initial primary threat to the Borax Lake chub was  habitat loss due to potential impact from geothermal energy development  and alteration of the lake’s shoreline. However, an FWS review of the chub  in 2003 identified other threats to its water source. Specifically, the aquifer  that feeds Borax Lake may be at risk due to groundwater pumping on  private lands, and increased recreational use at the lake poses a threat to  the lake’s water quality. Recreational use such as off-highway vehicles,  wading, camping, and boating, also increases the potential for introducing  invasive plants and animals that may harm the chub. The chub is inherently  vulnerable to catastrophic loss due to its highly limited distribution and  dependence on a single water source.
section_title: Recovery Plan Role
paragraphs: A recovery plan was approved for the Borax Lake chub in 1987. Key actions  called for by the recovery plan focus on protecting the lake ecosystem, and  include the acquisition of key private lands, protection of subsurface  waters, implementation of controls on human access, removal of livestock  grazing, and monitoring of the population. FWS reports that, of these  actions, the most significant that have been implemented are BLM’s  designation of the land surrounding Borax Lake as an Area of Critical  Environmental Concern in 1983, The Nature Conservancy’s purchase of  Borax Lake and the surrounding private lands in 1993, The Nature  Conservancy and BLM’s elimination of grazing within the critical habitat  surrounding Borax Lake, and the completion of numerous studies of the  chub and other species that led to a better understanding of the Borax Lake  ecosystem. Additionally, a crucial action for the species recovery that was  external to the recovery plan was the passage of the Steens Mountain  Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, which withdrew  public lands from mineral and geothermal development within most of the  area surrounding Borax Lake.
FWS reports that it has met many of the chub’s recovery objectives over the  last two decades and that the species may be nearing recovery. Actions  needed to downlist the chub from endangered to threatened include the  development of a conservation agreement (or a memorandum of  understanding) between FWS, BLM, The Nature Conservancy, and the  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, to clarify roles and  responsibilities associated with the management of the chub and the Borax  Lake ecosystem. Other actions likely needed before delisting include (1)   assessing visitor use of Borax Lake; (2) eliminating inappropriate vehicle  and boat access to reduce the threat of invasive species; (3) investigating  the use of interpretive signs, boardwalks, and designated observation sites  to explain the unique and fragile features of the ecosystem; (4) conducting  additional research to determine the risks of developing groundwater  resources on private lands, public lands with private subsurface rights, and  (pending the results of additional research) acquiring groundwater and/or  surface rights as needed; and (5) developing a contingency plan that would  identify procedures, needed equipment, and responsibilities for collecting  fish in case of an emergency.
section_title: Cost and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Colorado Pikeminnow
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS approved a recovery plan for the Colorado pikeminnow in 1978 and  revised it in 1991; the plan was revised again in 2002 to include more  specific recovery goals. The Colorado pikeminnow is one of four fish  covered by both the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.   FWS officials report that management actions in the recovery plan that  address threats have been implemented, successfully moving the  pikeminnow towards recovery. Objectives for downlisting the Colorado  pikeminnow include maintaining a specified number of naturally self- sustaining populations in two to three areas. To meet these objectives,  actions have been taken on all the major rivers in the Upper Colorado River  Basin (including the San Juan River Basin); these actions include ensuring  appropriate water flow and quality, and controlling problematic nonnative  fishes. FWS officials report that the pikeminnow responds quickly to  habitat improvements and reproduces quickly; they hope to delist the  species around 2015.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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. 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. FWS is one of many program partners, including  other federal agencies; Native American tribes; and private entities like the  Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, the Colorado Water  Congress, the Utah Water Users Association, The Nature Conservancy, and  Western Resource Advocates. From fiscal years 1989 through 2006, the  Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program spent more  than $161 million on endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided  more than $20 million. From fiscal years 1992 through 2006, the San Juan  River Basin Recovery Implementation Program spent more than $34.6  million on endangered fish recovery, of which FWS provided more than  $1.6 million.
section_title: Razorback Sucker
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San  Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program track expenditures for  the razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, and humpback chub  together, so costs specific to the razorback sucker recovery are not  available. 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.   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.
section_title: Rio Grande Silvery Minnow
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Snails
subsections: section_title: Magazine Mountain Shagreen
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: The two primary threats to the snail when it was listed were mitigated by  actions that were outside of the recovery plan for the species. Specifically,  the Forest Service designated Mount Magazine as a “special interest area,”  which affords protection to the species by prohibiting certain activities  such as timber harvesting and the use of herbicides and pesticides. The  Department of Defense withdrew its proposal for military operations in the  area because it conflicted with the Forest Service’s land management plan  for the area. In addition, FWS participated in the preparation of an  environmental impact statement for the development of the proposed state  park, which led to a memorandum of understanding between FWS, the  Forest Service, and the Arkansas State Parks agency. The memorandum of  understanding ensures protection of the species during the development of  the park.
FWS approved a recovery plan for the shagreen in 1994 and, with its  partners, has implemented most of the actions. Two of the important  recovery tasks in the plan were (1) the Forest Service’s monitoring of the  shagreen population for 10 years—which is almost complete—and (2)  FWS, the Forest Service, and the State of Arkansas entering into a  memorandum of agreement to share in recovery efforts and protection of  the species. Additional recovery actions that have been important for the  species include better planning in regards to prescribed fires, timber  harvests, and use of chemical fire retardants within the shagreen habitat.
These actions were not included in FWS’s recovery plan, but were part of  the Forest Service’s Ozark National Forest Management Plan and the  special interest area designation of Mount Magazine. Additionally, FWS and  the Forest Service have held numerous informal consultations on fire  management, and are developing a new method of monitoring overall  forest health that would include monitoring other snails that inhabit the  forest floor as surrogates for the shagreen.  Although Forest Service  surveys show that the population appears to be stable, it remains listed  because funding for the research needed to delist it had not been available  until this year. FWS reports that it may be able to delist the species by 2010.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Insects
subsections: section_title: Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: An FWS official reports that the greatest threats to the Uncompahgre  fritillary butterfly are humans trying to collect it; and trampling of its larvae  by humans and livestock. In addition, changes in climate, such as hotter or  drier weather, may be responsible for observed decreases in butterfly  populations in certain years.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Crustaceans
subsections: section_title: Socorro Isopod
paragraphs: The Socorro isopod (Thermosphaeroma thermophilum) was listed as  endangered in 1978. The isopod is a freshwater crustacean about 4 to 13  millimeters long with a flattened, segmented body, seven pairs of legs,  antennae on the head, and oar-like extensions on its last segment. It  survives in warm water with a very narrow range of temperature and  salinity. It is endemic to the outflow of Sedillo Spring, a thermal spring  found near the base of the Socorro Mountains in New Mexico. The Socorro  isopod is of particular scientific interest because it is one of only two  freshwater isopods in the primarily marine sphaeromidae family.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS approved a recovery plan for the Socorro isopod in 1982. FWS reports  that they have completed all planned recovery actions deemed critical to  the Socorro isopod's survival that are within their capabilities. These  include stablizing and protecting the populations and their habitats,  including a more secure water flow; and conducting additional research  and monitoring. However, even before a recovery plan was in place for the  isopod, an essential action was implemented that proved critical to the  species’ survival. Specifically, captive populations were established in 1977  in order to protect the species against extinction. These populations saved  this species when, in August 1988, tree roots blocked the spring’s flow and  the wild population of Socorro isopods became extinct. After the spring’s  flow was restored in September 1988, isopods from the captive populations  were reintroduced. The threat of extinction of this species was further  mitigated in 1990, when Socorro isopods from the native and captive  populations were introduced into a new facility called the Socorro Isopod  Propagation Facility. This facility consists of eight cement tanks located in  a secure area one-half mile north of the bathhouse, and is fed by water from  the same spring. The population at this facility has been monitored monthly  since November 1994, and FWS reports that it is stable.
However, FWS has yet to obtain a long-term conservation agreement with  the private landowner although the landowner has taken steps to protect the bathhouse and spring. FWS reports that the lack of an agreement  means that the wild population will likely remain susceptible to extirpation  for the foreseeable future. As a result, it is unlikely that the Socorro isopod  will ever be delisted, although it may eventually be downlisted.
section_title: Cost and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Plants
subsections: section_title: Ash Meadows Gumplant, Ash Meadows Sunray, and Spring-Loving Centaury
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: FWS officials report that the primary threats to the three plants, at the time  they were listed, were development and water diversion that would have  resulted from a planned resort community in the Ash Meadows region. An  additional threat specific to the sunray was trampling by cattle and horses,  and now this species is threatened by potential mineral development.  Currently, the primary threat to the centaury and gumplant is from invasive  plants. Five thousand acres of the wildlife refuge were agricultural lands  that went fallow, and invasive species began to expand in the area. One  species, the Russian knapweed, is a particular threat to the centaury and  gumplant because its woody stalks increase the likelihood of wildfires.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf
paragraphs: The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) was listed as  threatened in 1989. This plant species is usually no more than 6 inches tall  and has dark, leathery, heart-shaped evergreen leaves, and beige to dark  brown jug-shaped flowers. It occurs in a small portion of the upper  piedmont region of North Carolina and South Carolina, where it grows in  streamside habitats and acidic soil on bluffs and adjacent slopes. At the  time of listing, there were about 23 known populations in eight counties.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: FWS has not approved a recovery plan for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.  The agency developed a draft in association with a status review in 1997,  but because of the information gained during the review—including the  discovery of new populations and concerns the recovery partners raised  about taxonomy—the plan was never finalized. While found to be more  abundant than originally thought (surveys have more than tripled the  number of known populations and expanded the species distribution to 16  counties), the species was not proposed for downlisting after the 1997  review because some partners raised concerns as to whether or not the  species’ survival could be assured, given that the majority of known  populations occur in a region of increasing development pressure.   Partners expressing concerns included the North Carolina Plant  Conservation Program, the North Carolina’s Natural Heritage Program,  university botanists, and consultants; these partners also raised questions  about the taxonomy of the species, as well as the identification of the  species at some of the known sites.
Although the current population estimates indicate that the species has the  potential to be delisted, additional steps are needed to mitigate  development. According to FWS officials, to address this threat, FWS first  needs to determine which of the many populations are critical to the  species’ continued survival, and whether they are stable. Once those  populations are identified, FWS would then need to obtain agreements  from landowners or acquire land to ensure continued protection. FWS  officials would like to quantify rates of habitat loss by examining available  development indicators, such as building permits, but have not obtained  sufficient funding to do so.
FWS initiated another status review in 2004 to determine whether the  species continued to warrant protection under the Endangered Species  Act. If the review finds that the species still warrants protection under the  act, FWS will propose recovery criteria, including specific actions for  different locations and estimated costs. FWS expects to pursue delisting  the heartleaf by 2015, pending the results of the status review. FWS officials  believe they can carry out any needed steps for this species without a  recovery plan.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Eggert’s Sunflower
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: FWS officials report that threats to Eggert’s sunflower at the time of listing  included: (1) fire suppression, because the species relies on periodic fires  to maintain suitable habitat; (2) loss of habitat due to development; (3)  invasion by nonnative plant species; (4) habitat impacts from maintenance  of roadsides and power lines, such as herbicide spraying and mowing; and  (5) herbivory, including by insects and white-tailed deer.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Johnston’s Frankenia
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: FWS officials report that they initially believed the primary threats to  Johnston’s frankenia were its low numbers, low reproductive potential,  narrow range, and habitat modification by land management practices that  included overgrazing, root plowing, and planting non-native grasses.
However, at the time of the listing, limited data were available for this  species, partially because the species occurs primarily on privately owned  land that was not readily accessible; also, little focused research had been  conducted on the species.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Papery Whitlow-Wort
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: FWS officials report that the primary threat to the papery whitlow-wort is  habitat loss due to residential, industrial, and commercial (including citrus)  development.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Cost and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Truckee Barberry
paragraphs: The Truckee barberry (Berberis sonnei) was listed as endangered in 1979.  The plant is a small evergreen shrub originally thought to exist only near  the Truckee River in California. However, a 1993 study reclassified the  plant and included it as part of a much more prevalent species. The  Truckee barberry was delisted in 2003.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: The threat, at the time of listing, was that only one known Truckee barberry  population existed. This population was located on private property.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: FWS only had expenditure information for the delisting process, which  took 3 years and about $33,000.
section_title: Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recovery Plan Role
paragraphs: FWS approved the Uinta Basin hookless cactus recovery plan in 1990.  However, according to FWS officials, the recovery plan has not been fully  implemented because it competes with many other species for funding.  Needed actions outlined in the recovery plan include achieving a total  population of 30,000 individuals, with at least 2,000 individuals in a  minimum of six separate populations; protecting land to provide for long- term, undisturbed habitat; and conducting taxonomic studies on the  species. However, FWS officials stated that funding levels have only  allowed for completing a taxonomic study. FWS officials report they have  been involved in Section 7 consultations with BLM concerning oil and gas  leases affecting the cactus, and there have been adverse effect  determinations. FWS officials are currently working with BLM and oil and  gas companies to minimize the loss of cacti due to energy development in  its habitat. FWS officials report that the cactus could be delisted in 10 to 20  years, assuming adequate funding is received and habitat protection  measures are implemented.
section_title: Costs and Partnerships
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Virginia Round-Leaf Birch
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Threats
paragraphs: FWS officials report that most of the Virginia round-leaf birch population  occurs on Forest Service land and that the primary threats to the species  when it was listed were its reproductive characteristics and distinct habitat  needs. For example, studies have shown that seed viability is significantly  lower in the round-leaf birch than in other dark-bark birches in the Cressy  Creek area. Reproduction is also limited by long distances between pollen  sources. Periodic droughts and floods, and herbivory (mostly by deer and  rabbits), are also threats. Additionally, in the 1980s, vandalism by collectors  led to the loss of numerous individual trees—10 of the original 41 trees, 30  seedlings that had grown as a result of Forest Service recovery actions, and  81 greenhouse seedlings grown by the National Arboretum. FWS officials  report that the Virginia round-leaf birch does not currently have any  imminent threats, however, due to its limited geographic range, it faces  challenges such as drought and occasional flooding.
section_title: Role of Recovery Plan
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Cost and Partnerships
paragraphs: FWS officials report that they cannot provide a cost estimate for recovery  expenditures because most of the recovery activities were completed in the  1980s and much of the documentation is no longer available. The Forest  Service and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,  which listed the species as endangered at the state level in 1979, have led  recovery efforts. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services  provided funding for cultivation of birch seedlings for distribution to  arboreta, botanical gardens, and the public. Other partners include the  National Arboretum, which coordinated the distribution of seedlings to the  public; various conservation organizations; universities; and private  entities.