Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species, but Needs to Periodically Assess Its Funding Decisions
Published: 2005-04-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Currently there are more than 1,260 species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While few species have gone extinct since 1973, only 9 have been "recovered" or removed from the list because they no longer need the act's protection. This has raised questions about how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) allocates its recovery funds. Proponents of the act believe that the Service's recovery funds are only a small fraction of what is needed to make greater recovery progress. The act and agency guidelines require the Service to prioritize species to guide recovery fund allocation. In fiscal year 2000 through 2003, the Service spent $127 million dollars in recovery funds attributable to individual species. In this report, GAO analyzed (1) the extent to which the Service's allocation of recovery funds compares with its recovery priority guidelines and (2) what factors influence the Service's recovery allocation decisions.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Service spent its recovery funds in a manner generally consistent with species priority in fiscal years 2000 through 2003, spending almost half (44 percent) of the $127 million on the highest priority species (see figure below). Species in the next two highest priority groups received almost all of the remaining recovery funds (51 percent). Species in the three lowest priority groups received very little funding (6 percent). Most listed species (92 percent) are in the top three priority groups. When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base their decisions to a significant extent on factors other than a species' priority ranking. At the headquarters level, a formula that focuses on each region's workload determines how recovery funds are allocated to regional offices. Each regional office allocates its recovery funds to their field offices differently, but in no case is priority ranking the driving factor. Instead, regional officials focus primarily on opportunities for partnerships, though they told us that they also focus on species facing the gravest threats. Field office staff we spoke with emphasized the importance of pursuing funding partnerships in order to maximize their scarce recovery funds. The Service does not know the effect of these disparate allocation systems because it does not have a process to routinely measure the extent to which it is spending its recovery funds on higher priority species. While we found that for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 the Service spent a majority of its recovery funds on high priority species, without periodically assessing its funding decisions, the Service cannot ensure that it spends its recovery funds on the species that are of the greatest priority and, in cases where it does not, determine whether its funding decisions are appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects more than 1,260 species  facing extinction or likely to face extinction (referred to as endangered and  threatened species, respectively). The purpose of the act is to conserve  endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they  depend. Critics of the act are concerned that this goal is not being met  because only 9 species have been “recovered”—brought to the point where  they no longer need the act’s protection—since the act’s inception in 1973.   However, proponents of the act counter that because of the act’s  protections only 9 species have gone extinct. Proponents also point out  that funding available to recover species is only a small fraction of what  federal scientists believe is needed, making greater recovery progress a  practical impossibility.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responsible for  implementing the act for freshwater and land species. To recover species,  the Service develops recovery plans, which include site-specific recovery  tasks such as identifying the size of a population or restoring habitat.  Recovery plans can take years or decades to fully implement, depending on  the needs of the species covered by the plan. In 1979, Congress amended  the act, in part, to require the Service to establish guidelines for prioritizing  the development and implementation of recovery plans. The Service  established guidelines that, among other things, prioritize species based on  factors such as the degree of threat the species faces and its potential to be  recovered. Under these guidelines, therefore, species facing a high degree  of threat and having a high potential for recovery are to be afforded the  highest priority. Species in this category include the northern spotted owl,  the grizzly bear, and the American crocodile as well as lesser-known high- priority species such as Fender’s blue butterfly, Texas wild rice, and the  Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (a sea bird). The recovery guidelines  emphasize that they should be used only as a guide, not as an inflexible  framework for determining funding allocations.
During fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the Service allocated $245 million— between $56 million and $65 million per year—to develop and implement  plans under its recovery program. Biologists inside the Service and  elsewhere believe these funds are a small fraction of what is needed in the  face of the daunting recovery challenge. As a result, the Service  increasingly relies on partnerships with other federal agencies, the states,  and private organizations to help implement recovery plans and has  cultivated relationships with many of them by jointly funding projects. For  example, the Service’s Hawaii field office is jointly funding a project with  other federal agencies, local governments, and The Nature Conservancy to  revitalize watersheds to help recover the endangered Hawaiian duck,  among other species. Although the Service is required to report annually on  all federal and some state expenditures on listed species, it does not  separately report on how it spent its recovery funds by species.
You asked us to assess how the Service allocates its recovery funds among  endangered and threatened species. In this report, we (1) analyze how the  Service’s allocation of recovery funds compares with its recovery priority  guidelines and (2) determine what factors influence the Service’s recovery  funding allocation decisions. Since most of the Service’s recovery funding  was spent on salaries that are not allocated on a per species basis, we  asked each of the Service’s regional offices to identify, to the extent  possible, the spending on individual species for fiscal years 2000 through  2003. Collectively, the regions were able to attribute to individual species  $127 million (52 percent) of the $245 million the Service allocated to the  recovery program. We also obtained the individual species’ priority ranking  based on the recovery priority guidelines for those years. We then  compared the recovery expenditures for individual species with those  species’ priority rankings for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. In addition, we  interviewed Service recovery officials in headquarters, all seven regional  offices, and several field offices throughout the country. (See App. I for a  more detailed description of the scope and methodology of our review).   We did not make a judgment about the adequacy or accuracy of the  Service’s recovery priority system. In this report we analyzed only Fish and  Wildlife Service’s recovery expenditures, not expenditures on other  endangered and threatened species activities (which are reported, in  combination with recovery expenditures, in Fish and Wildlife Service’s  annual expenditure report to Congress) or expenditures from other  entities. We performed our work between February 2004 and January 2005  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  endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they  depend. The act defines “conservation” as the recovery of endangered and  threatened species so that they no longer need the protective measures  afforded by the Act. The act defines as endangered any species facing  extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and defines as  threatened any species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable  future. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish a list of  species it determines are endangered or threatened in the Federal Register  and specify any critical habitat of the species with in its range—habitat  essential to a species’ conservation. Loss of habitat is often the principal  cause of species decline. Additionally, the act establishes a process for  federal agencies to consult with the Service about their activities that may  affect listed species. Federal agencies must ensure that their activities, or  any activities they fund, permit or license, do not jeopardize the continued  existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse  modification of its critical habitat.
There were 1,264 species in the United States listed as endangered or  threatened as of September 30, 2004. The Service has responsibility for  1252 of these species. Thirty-two species have been removed from the list:  9 species as a result of recovery efforts, 9 because they have been declared  extinct, and 14 species for other reasons, mostly because new information  showed that listing was no longer warranted.
The Service develops and implements recovery plans, among other things,  to reverse the decline of each listed species and ensure its long-term  survival. A recovery plan may include a variety of methods and procedures  to recover listed species, such as protective measures to prevent extinction  or further decline, habitat acquisition and restoration, and other on-the- ground activities for managing and monitoring endangered and threatened  species. According to Service officials, it is their policy to issue a recovery  plan within two and a half years of the species’ date of listing. The Service  exempts species from the plan requirement when it is determined a plan  will not promote their conservation. For example, the ivory-billed  woodpecker is exempt because the Service thinks it is extirpated from the  wild throughout its range.
Recovery plans aim to identify the problems threatening the species and  the actions needed to resolve them. The act directs the Service, to the  maximum extent practicable, to incorporate into each recovery plan (1) a  description of site-specific recovery tasks 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 endangered and threatened species (delisted);  and (3) an implementation schedule that estimates the time and cost  required to carry out the recovery tasks described in the recovery plan.  Service employees, independent scientists, species experts, or a mix of  these people can develop recovery plans. According to Service officials, as  of September 2004, the Fish and Wildlife Service had 551 approved  recovery plans covering more than 1025 species (more than 80 percent of  all listed species).
The act also requires the Service to report biennially to certain  Congressional committees on efforts to develop and implement recovery  plans, and on the status of listed species for which plans have been  developed. The Service implements this requirement through its biennial  Recovery Report to Congress. Additionally, the act requires the Service to  submit an annual report to the Congress on federal expenditures for the  conservation of endangered or threatened species, as well as expenditures  by states receiving federal financial assistance for such conservation  activities. As part of its efforts to compile data for this report, the Service  collects data on recovery fund expenditures on a species-specific basis,  although these data have not been reported separately in published  expenditure reports.
With regard to Service funds, the Endangered Species program is a small  portion of the Service’s overall budget ($132 million of $1.9 billion in fiscal  year 2003). Of this amount, about one-half is devoted to the recovery  program, $65 million (see fig. 2). This is similar to previous fiscal years.   The funds spent on the recovery program, however, are only a portion of  the total money spent to recover species. Some of the Service’s other  programs, including refuges, contribute funds and staff to species recovery.  In addition, according to the Service, other federal and non-federal entities  contribute substantial funds to species recovery.
In addition to the Service’s Endangered Species Program expenditures to  recover species, other programs in the Service as well as other federal and  state agencies spend substantial funds on endangered species activities,  including land acquisition (see table 1).
Congress amended the Endangered Species Act in 1979 to require the  Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to establish, and publish in the  Federal Register, agency guidelines that include a priority system for  developing and implementing recovery plans. The Service adopted  recovery priority guidelines in 1980 and amended them in 1983. The  guidelines consist of two parts:  Species are assigned a priority ranking between 1 and 18 on the basis of  (in descending order of importance) (1) the degree of threat confronting  the species, (2) recovery potential (the likelihood for successfully  recovering the species), and (3) taxonomy (genetic distinctiveness).   (See table 2.)  Additionally, a “c” is added to the ranking if there is  conflict with economic activities, like development; this gives the  species priority over other species with the same ranking but without a  “c”. Thus, the highest possible priority ranking is a “1c”. The Service  sometimes changes a species’ priority ranking when warranted by a  change in the species’ situation.
The second part of the priority system ranks the recovery tasks within  each recovery plan. Each task is assigned a priority number from 1 to 3,  with 1 being the highest. A priority 1 task is “an action that must be  taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining  irreversibly.” A priority 2 task is “an action that must be taken to prevent  a significant decline in species population/habitat quality or some other  significant negative impact short of extinction”, and a priority 3 task is  “all other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.”
The recovery guidelines emphasize that they should be used only as a  guide, not as an inflexible framework for determining funding allocations.
Within the Service, responsibility for implementing the act is divided  among its three administrative levels: headquarters, regions and field  offices. Headquarters officials develop policy and guidance and allocate  funding to the regions. Regional directors in the seven regions (shown in  figure 3) make most decisions on how to spend endangered species  program funds and are responsible for managing their field offices’  program activities. Field offices are responsible for implementing program  activities and setting priorities for projects they will undertake.
section_title: The Service Spends a Significant Portion of Recovery Funds on the Highest Priority Species
paragraphs: The Fish and Wildlife Service spent its recovery funds in a manner  generally consistent with species priority in fiscal years 2000 through 2003.  From fiscal years 2000 to 2003, the Service spent 44 percent of its recovery  funds attributable to individual species on those species with the highest  priority, the 415 species ranked 1 through 3 on the 18-point priority ranking  scale (see fig. 4). However, 25 of these species received no recovery  funding at all during fiscal years 2000 through 2003. Additionally, two  species with low priority rankings, the bald eagle (with a priority ranking of  14c) and the Canada lynx (with a ranking of 15), received substantial  recovery funding during fiscal years 2000-2003.
One reason the Service spent 44 percent of its recovery funds attributable  to individual species on the highest priority species is that this group  accounts for a significant portion of all listed species—one-third (see fig.  5). Similarly, the Service spent almost all (94 percent) of its attributable  recovery funds on species ranked 1 through 9 on the 18-point scale, which  account for 92 percent of all listed species.
As shown in figure 6, analysis of average spending on a per species basis  also reveals that more expenditures are made on higher priority species.  Additionally, the analysis shows the emphasis the Service placed on species  with a high degree of recoverability. The relatively large amount of funding  spent on species with low priority rankings (13 through 15) is greatly  influenced by spending on the bald eagle (with a priority ranking of 14c)  and the Canada lynx (with a ranking of 15). The bald eagle is nearing  delisting and the funding was spent on delisting activities. The Canada lynx  was embroiled in controversy that required recovery staff to respond to  litigation. When spending on these two species is removed, the average  amount spent on species in this priority group is significantly lower.
In addition to species priority ranking, another obvious measure of priority  is whether a species is endangered or threatened. Over three-quarters (78  percent) of species protected under the act are listed as endangered, and  most of these have high priority rankings (see fig. 7). We analyzed spending  by species status (endangered or threatened) and found that the Service  spent a majority (64 percent) of its recovery funds on endangered species  during fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
Finally, we analyzed spending by the three taxonomic classifications  included in the Service’s recovery priority guidelines—monotypic genus,  species, and subspecies. As shown in figure 8, an analysis of average  spending on a per species basis reveals that more expenditures are made  on listed entities classified as monotypic genus. A species that is a  monotypic genus is the only remaining species representing the entire  genus.
section_title: The Service Considers Factors Besides Species Priority When Allocating Recovery Funds but Does Not Assess the Results of Its Funding Decisions
paragraphs: When Service officials allocate recovery funds, they base these decisions to  a significant extent on factors other than a species’ priority ranking. At the  headquarters level, a formula that accounts for each region’s workload, but  not species’ priority rankings, determines how recovery funds are  allocated. Each regional office allocates recovery funds to their field  offices differently, but in no case is priority ranking the driving factor.  Instead, regional officials focus primarily on partnership opportunities,  though regional officials told us they do try to provide funds to species that  have a high degree of threat. Although field office staff we spoke with use  priority rankings, they also emphasized the importance of having flexibility  to allocate funds to develop partnerships. The Service does not know the  extent to which these disparate allocation systems yield results consistent  with the Service’s priority guidelines because the Service does not have a  process to routinely measure the extent to which it is spending its recovery  funds on higher priority species.
subsections: section_title: Headquarters Allocates Funds to the Regions Based on Workload
paragraphs: In making allocation decisions, headquarters does not consider a species’  priority ranking or any of the factors that go into determining priority  rankings. Instead, it allocates recovery funds to its seven regions based  primarily on a formula that estimates each region’s workload. The  formula estimates the recovery workload for each region by assigning each  species a score of between 2 and 7 points, based on the type of species and  its habitat needs. Higher points are assigned to those species whose  recovery requires higher levels of funding or effort—factors that are not  clearly related to a species’ priority ranking. For example, animals are  assigned 2 points while plants are assigned 1. Species that occupy habitats  larger than 1 million acres or are migratory or aquatic are assigned 5 points  whereas species that occupy less than 1,000 acres are assigned 1 point.  Recovery funds are then allocated to the regions based on the number of  species occurring in each region and the points assigned to those species.  Additionally, headquarters uses a workload-based formula to allocate funds  to regions to develop recovery plans. Funds are allocated to each region  based on the number of species that it is responsible for that have not been  exempted from the plan requirement and that have been listed for 4 years  or less. If after 4 years there is still no plan, then the region no longer  receives recovery-planning money for that species, though the region is still  responsible for completing that species’ recovery plan.
Service officials in headquarters told us that they use an allocation system  based on workload rather than the priority guidelines for a number of  reasons. First, this system provides relatively stable funding to each region  from year to year. In contrast, priority rankings can change over time,  which would add an element of unpredictability to the annual allocations.  Stability is important, according to Service officials, because most of a  region’s recovery budget supports staff salaries for recovery biologists.  These biologists work on a wide variety of recovery activities including  helping to develop recovery plans, conducting as well as coordinating on- the-ground actions to implement recovery plans, conducting periodic  species status reviews, developing recovery partnerships, and litigation  support. Second, although priority rankings indicate which species are  higher priority, they do not reflect how much money a species needs.  Service officials pointed out that higher priority species are not necessarily  more costly to recover than lower priority species. Lastly, Service officials  told us that a system based on workload is more objective, and they  expressed concern that the subjective nature of priority rankings could  create conflict between the regions if allocations were based on these  rankings. While Service officials at headquarters told us that recovery  funds should be spent according to priority rankings, they believe those  decisions should be made at the regional level.
Almost all of the regional officials we talked to agreed that the allocation  system used by headquarters works well and is fair and equitable, although  some of them suggested changes. For example, some regional and field  office officials noted that a species’ priority ranking, particularly its degree  of threat, could be included, along with the existing workload factors, in  headquarters’ formula for allocating recovery funds.
section_title: Regional Offices Focus on Opportunities for Partnerships When Making Funding Decisions
paragraphs: While each region allocates recovery funds to its field offices differently,  we found that the most important consideration among the regions is to  maintain and develop recovery partnerships, either by funding long- standing arrangements to work with partners to recover specific species or  by taking advantage of opportunities to develop new partnerships. For  example, officials at the Southwest region told us that for the last 10 years  the region has allocated its discretionary recovery funds primarily to four  species for which it has long-standing partnerships with other entities—the  Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, the whooping crane, the Mexican wolf and the  Attwater’s prairie chicken. The financial support from long-term partners,  in concert with expenditures from the Service, provides a stable funding  source for recovery projects from year to year, helping to create viable  recovery programs for these four species. For example, the Kemp’s Ridley  sea turtle population has increased from a low of 270 females to several  thousand females in the course of this long-term partnership.
Service officials told us that it is important to maintain their yearly  contributions to long-standing partnerships, regardless of the species’  priority ranking, because the funds these partners contribute are critical to  species’ recovery and the partners could lose interest without the Service’s  contributions. Officials at all levels of the Service reported to us that they  have insufficient recovery funds. Although it is difficult to develop an  accurate estimate of the full cost to recover all listed species (and it is  unlikely that some species will ever be recovered), we analyzed the cost  data contained in 120 recovery plans covering an estimated 189 listed  species. Based on the Service’s estimated recovery costs in these plans,  we found that it would cost approximately $98 million dollars to fully fund  these plans—plans that cover just 15 percent of listed species—for a single  year. This amount is well above the $65 million the Service allocated in  fiscal year 2003 to develop and implement recovery plans and does not  account for the recovery needs of the remaining 1000 listed species. Even  implementing only the highest priority recovery plan tasks for those 120  plans—recovery plan tasks “necessary to avoid extinction,” would cost  approximately $57 million, nearly 90 percent of the Services’ total recovery  budget in fiscal year 2003. Consequently, the Service is dependent on  monetary contributions from partners to facilitate species recovery.
Regional officials not only fund long-standing partnerships, but look for  opportunities to develop new ones as well. Service officials expressed  concern that if they were confined to allocating funds strictly by the  priority system, they could alienate potential recovery partners. For  example, some regional officials pointed out that land acquisition can take  many years, so if willing sellers present themselves, the region will take  advantage of that opportunity by allocating recovery funds to acquire those  lands even if they do not benefit a species of the highest priority. In another  example, officials in a field office in the Pacific region told us they were  able to leverage its $20,000 investment into a $60,000 project by developing  an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to jointly fund a study to identify  how the California red-legged frog was using suitable habitat. Fish and  Wildlife Service officials in the Pacific region also leverage funds with non- federal partners. In 2002, a $10,000 investment in desert tortoise monitoring  from the Fish and Wildlife Service was matched by $16,540 from Clark  County, Nevada and $5,000 from the Arizona Game and Fish Department.  Almost all of the Service officials we talked with stressed the importance of  having the flexibility to develop partnerships for recovery, particularly to  leverage the Service’s scarce recovery funds. Finding partners and other  sources of funds to implement recovery actions is also strongly emphasized  in the Service’s course on recovery implementation, which is offered at the  National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia and other locations  around the country.
While a species’ priority ranking is not a primary factor for determining  how regions distribute recovery funds, regions do consider priority  rankings when making recovery allocations. The two regions responsible  for the most species, the Southeast region and the Pacific region,  specifically incorporate the priority system into their funding allocations.  In the Southeast, field offices and other divisions of the Service, like  Refuges, submit proposals to obtain recovery funding to implement  recovery plan tasks. Once the regional office receives all the proposals,  officials determine which ones to fund that year. In doing so, they consider  a number of factors, including the species’ priority ranking. Similarly, the  Pacific regional office reserves a portion of the recovery funds it receives  and uses them to fund proposals submitted by its field offices to implement  recovery plan tasks. One of the factors the region considers when  determining which proposals to fund is the species’ priority ranking. Most  of the other regions we talked to told us that they consider some aspects of  the priority system when making funding decisions, particularly the  species’ degree of threat, although they do not directly consider a species’  priority ranking.
Sometimes regions will also target funds to lower--priority species if they  are nearing recovery. For example, the bald eagle ranked 20th among  those species with the highest recovery expenditures from fiscal year 2000  to fiscal year 2003, despite having a priority ranking of 14c. A Service  official attributed most of these expenditures to delisting activities for the  bald eagle. Many Service officials pointed out that the priority system does  not contain a mechanism for funding species that are nearing recovery.  Because a species’ priority will decrease as its threats are alleviated and it  moves closer to recovery, the priority system would dictate that other more  imperiled species be funded before those that are close to delisting.  Consequently, species close to recovery might never be delisted because  funds would not be allocated to complete the tasks required for delisting.  Service officials told us they need flexibility to provide funds that will help  get species off the list. Headquarters officials have also recognized this  issue and, beginning in fiscal year 2004, created a special fund that directs  funding to species close to delisting (as well as those close to extinction) in  its “Showing Success, Preventing Extinction” initiative.
section_title: Field Offices We Talked to Use the Priority System When Making Funding Allocations
paragraphs: In the field offices we contacted, we found that species’ priority rankings  play an important role in recovery allocations. Service personnel in four of  the ten field offices we spoke with told us that a species’ priority ranking is  one of the key factors they use to allocate recovery funds. For example, in  the Pacific Islands field office, which is responsible for the recovery of over  300 species, officials use the recovery priority system as a “first step,” then  overlay other factors, like opportunities to leverage funding. Staff in five of  the remaining six offices we spoke with told us that while they do not  specifically use the priority system when making recovery allocations, they  do consider a species’ degree of threat. Staff in the last field office said they  did not use the priority system because most of their funds were spent  according to direction provided by the region.
Despite their use of the priority system, most of the field office staff we  contacted also stressed the importance of having the flexibility to allocate  funds to take advantage of unique opportunities when they arise. For  example, officials in a field office in California told us they took advantage  of an opportunity to leverage recovery funding for the California red-legged  frog. A population of this frog was recently discovered in Calaveras County,  site of Mark Twain’s famous story The Celebrated Jumping Frog of  Calaveras County, which featured the California red-legged frog. The  landowner where the population was discovered was eager to work with  the Service to build a stock pond to provide habitat for the red-legged frog  and eradicate bullfrogs (red-legged frog competitors). The discovery of the  frog population was momentous because the species is important to local  lore, and a population of the frog had not been found in Calaveras County  since the late 1800s (see fig. 9). Even though the field office has 65 species  with higher priority rankings than the red-legged frog, officials decided to  address this recovery opportunity because of the frog’s importance to the  local community. Other unique events also require funding flexibility. In a  Utah field office last year, for example, a road expansion threatened the  existence of the clay phacelia, an endangered plant. The field office staff  responded to this threat by working with partners to collect seeds for  future propagation.
section_title: The Service Does Not Assess and Report on Its Recovery Fund Expenditures
paragraphs: The Service does not know the extent to which recovery fund expenditures  are consistent with its priority guidelines. All of the Service’s organizational  levels participate in funding decisions, often relying on factors other than  species priority. Although our analysis shows that the Service generally  spent its recovery resources on higher priority species during fiscal years  2000 through 2003, we found that the Service has no process to routinely  measure the extent to which it is spending its recovery funds on higher  priority species. Without this information, the Service cannot ensure that it  is spending its recovery funds on such species, and in cases where it is not,  determine whether the funding decisions are appropriate. This is especially  problematic as circumstances change—for example, when species are  added to the list or priority rankings change for already-listed species.
Although the Service is required to report all federal and some state  expenditures on listed species, it does not separately report how it spent  its recovery funds by species. This lack of separate reporting can make it  difficult for Congress and others to determine whether the Service is  focusing its recovery resources on the highest-priority species. For  example, the species that received the greatest total federal and state  expenditures in fiscal year 2003 are substantially different from those we  identified as having received the greatest portion of the Service’s recovery  fund expenditures. Of the 47 species that the Service reported as having  received the greatest total expenditures in fiscal year 2003, the Service  has joint or lead responsibility for 20 of them. The list of 20 species is  radically different from the list that we identified as having received the  greatest portion of the Service’s recovery fund expenditures (see table 3).  In the case of the Southwestern willow flycatcher, the Service reported that  more funds were expended on the flycatcher in fiscal year 2003 than for all  but three other species for which the Service has lead responsibility.  However, the information the Service provided to us shows that it spent  relatively few recovery funds on the Southwestern willow flycatcher in  fiscal year 2003—it ranked 84th in the Service’s recovery expenditures.
Total reported expenditures and Service recovery fund expenditures differ  substantially because the Service’s recovery priority guidelines do not  apply to most of the reported funds—those funds provided by other federal  agencies and some funds reported by state agencies. The Service has little  control over how other organizations spend their funds. The reported  expenditures also include Service expenditures in addition to recovery  funds, such as expenditures on listing and consultation, which are also not  subject to the Service’s recovery guidelines. In fact, in many instances, the  Service does not have discretion over which species should receive these  funds. For example, the Service spends consultation funds largely based on  projects submitted to it by other federal agencies.
Not unexpectedly, the list of 20 species receiving the greatest portion of the  Service’s recovery fund expenditures in fiscal year 2003 is also different  from the list of species receiving the greatest portion of total federal and  state expenditures in fiscal year 2003 (see table 4). For example, the  California condor and the Western population of the gray wolf ranked first  and third, respectively in recovery fund expenditures but are ranked 25th  and 29th, respectively in overall federal and state expenditures.
Without a process to measure the extent to which it is spending its  recovery funds on the highest-priority species, the Service lacks valuable  information that would aid it in making management decisions. For  example, while maintaining partnerships to fund certain species may be  reasonable, many of these partnerships have been in place for many years,  and changes to the species’ status or threat level, as well as changes to the  threat level of other species and the addition of newly listed species, could  have occurred in that time. As such, perhaps the reasons for creating some  of these partnerships may have been superseded by other needs and it may  no longer be appropriate for particular species to garner so much funding  from the region. Officials in the Southwest region, for instance, told us that  most of the region’s discretionary recovery funds are spent on four species  (Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, Whooping crane, Mexican wolf, and Attwater’s  prairie chicken). These officials stated that they did not know these  species’ recovery priority rankings until after we scheduled a meeting with  them, although they did believe the species to be highly ranked. While these  four species all have high priority rankings—2c, 2c, 3 and 3c, respectively— the region has lead responsibility for about 80 other species with a priority  ranking between 1 and 3. Although many of these species also received  funding during fiscal years 2000-2003, more than one-quarter (20 species)  had no Service recovery fund expenditures attributable to them.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Service faces a very difficult task—recovering more than 1,200  endangered and threatened species to the point that they no longer need  the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Many of these species face  grave threats and have been imperiled for years. There are few easy  solutions. Like many other federal agencies, the Service has limited funds  with which to address these challenges. Fortunately, many other  organizations contribute resources to help species. The Service maintains  that its ability to be flexible in allocating its scarce recovery resources is  the key to maximizing those contributions from other organizations. We  agree that exercising flexibility in allocating recovery funds under its  priority guidelines is important, but this needs to occur within the bounds  of a systematic and transparent process. The Service, however, does not  have such a process. While the Service acknowledges that it strays from its  priority guidelines, it does not routinely analyze its allocation decisions to  determine whether it is focusing on the highest priority species and, if not,  why. Such an analysis is important to ensure that the Service continues to  spend its recovery funds on the highest priority species over the long term.  Without this information, the Service cannot show Congress or the public  the extent that it is focusing its resources on the highest priority species, or  explain, in cases where it is not, that its resource decisions are still  appropriate.
To this end, we believe the Service’s priority guidelines provide it with the  means to create a systematic and transparent allocation process while still  allowing it needed flexibility. Because the Service already collects data, on  a species by species basis, on how it spends its recovery funds, it would be  a simple task to measure the extent to which it is spending its recovery  funds on high-priority species. It could then make this information publicly  available, thus providing the Congress and the public a yardstick with  which to judge the efficacy of the Service’s resource allocation decisions.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that the Service allocates recovery resources consistent  with the priority guidelines over the long term and in a transparent fashion,  we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the Service to take  the following two actions:  (1) periodically assess the extent to which it is  following its recovery priority guidelines and identify how factors other  than those in the guidelines are affecting its funding allocation decisions,  and (2) report this information publicly, for example, in its biennial  recovery report to Congress.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on a draft of this report from the  Department of the Interior. In general, the Department agreed with our  findings and recommendations but believes that we underestimated the  extent to which the Service’s funding decisions are consistent with its  recovery priority guidelines. Because we found that the Service spent its  recovery funds in a manner generally consistent with species priority, we  do not believe this is a significant issue. See appendix II for the  Department’s letter and our response to it. Additionally, the Department  provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the report, as  appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At the time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of the Interior and other interested parties. We also will make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: In response to a request from the Chairman, House Committee on  Resources, we (1) analyzed how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s  allocation of recovery funds compares with its recovery priority guidelines  and (2) determined what factors influence the Service’s recovery funding  allocation decisions. As agreed with the Chairman’s staff, we evaluated  only those funds specifically spent by the Service to implement its recovery  program.
To address our first objective, we requested recovery expenditure data, on  a per species basis, from each of the Service’s seven regions for fiscal years  2000-2003. Because the Service spends most of its recovery funds on  salaries that are not allocated on a per species basis, we asked officials in  each region to attribute salaries to specific species to the best of their  abilities. To assess the reliability of these data, we compared the total  estimated expenditures we received from each region for each year to  budget documentation provided by headquarters officials, the Department  of the Interior’s Budget for fiscal years 2000-2003, and House and Senate  committee reports for Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal  years 2000-2003. We also asked the regional officials who provided these  data a series of data reliability questions covering issues such as data entry,  access, quality control procedures, and the accuracy and completeness of  the data, as well as any limitations of the data. All responded that the data  were generally accurate, and all but one performed some form of data  review to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, officials from all but one region  noted, as a limitation to the data, that it is sometimes difficult to link  expenditures on activities to specific species. We determined that the  expenditure data received from each of the Service’s seven regions were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also obtained from the Service data on each species’ priority number  for fiscal years 2000 through 2003, as well as other information about each  species, such as whether it is threatened or endangered and whether it has  a recovery plan. We did not make a judgment about the adequacy or  accuracy of the Service’s recovery priority system. The Service also  provided us with information on the estimated costs to implement  approximately 120 recovery plans. We assessed the reliability of these data  by (1) electronically testing required data elements, (2) reviewing existing  information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3)  interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. In addition, we  compared the data set sent to us by the Service to the Service’s publicly  available (online) Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS),  which contains data on listed species similar to that we received from the  Service. When we identified any difference between these two data sets, we  independently corroborated, to the extent possible, which data set was  correct by obtaining documentary evidence, either from the Federal  Register or the appropriate recovery plan. When appropriate according to  this documentary evidence, we made changes to the data sent to us by the  Service. For example, the spineless hedgehog cactus was listed in the data  set sent to us by the Service but was not found when we compared it to  online TESS. We checked the Federal Register and found that this species  was removed from the endangered species list in 1993, so we removed it  from the data set sent to us by the Service because our time frame of  interest is 2000 through 2003. In another instance, the data set sent to us by  the Service contained the Berkeley kangaroo rat, but this species was not  in TESS. We checked the recovery plan and found that this is a “species of  concern,” not an endangered or threatened species. The status field in the  data sent to us by the Service was blank, so we re-coded it as a species of  concern and then removed it from the data set because species of concern  are not part of our review. We also made changes to records that contained  errors. For example, the green sea turtle has two different populations.  However, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported the total recovery  expenditures for these two populations together. When expenditures were  merged with species lists, this expenditure total was shown twice. To  address that error we removed one expenditure total. All of these types of  changes, 5 records with factual errors (or 0.4 percent of the records) and 9  with missing information (0.7 percent of the records), were reviewed and  agreed to by all team analysts and supervisors. We also found and removed  14 duplicates and 27 records that were outside our scope (e.g., outside our  date range or species managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service,  not the Fish and Wildlife Service). On the basis of all of this work, we  determined that the data on species and recovery plans we received from  Fish and Wildlife Service were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report.
We then compared the expenditures on each species with the species’  priority ranking for fiscal year 2000 through 2003. We grouped together  species with similar rankings to deemphasize minor differences in species’  rankings. Grouping species this way had the effect of eliminating the  taxonomic distinction among species found in the recovery priority  guidelines. Table 5 shows the groupings.
We also assumed that the average cost to implement recovery plans in each  group was the same. We made this assumption explicitly because the cost  to implement individual recovery plans can vary substantially among  species. For example, we analyzed the cost to implement 120 recovery  plans (the only plans with these data available electronically) covering an  estimated 189 species (or 15 percent of listed species) and found that some  plans are very costly—$107,516,000—and some are not—$18,000. However,  many plans fall between these two extremes, costing between $1 million  and $6 million. We discussed this assumption with the Service, and they  agreed to its reasonableness.
The number of species in each priority group varied by year (see table 6).
In order to analyze overall average spending on a per species bases, we  calculated weighted average expenditures per species by priority ranking.  To do this we weighted the average expenditure per species for a specific  priority group and fiscal year by the proportion: (Number of species in a  particular priority group and fiscal year)/ (Number of species in same  priority group over all fiscal years).
In addressing our second objective, to determine what factors influence the  Service’s recovery funding allocation decisions, we interviewed managers  and recovery biologists in the Service’s recovery division in headquarters,  all seven regions and a nonprobability sample of 10 field offices. We  selected at least one field office from each region and selected a second  field office from the two regions that collectively have lead responsibility  for more than 50 percent of the endangered and threatened species in the  United States. Within each region, we selected field offices that have lead  responsibility for a high number of species relative to other field offices in  that region. The region responsible for the largest number of species, the  Pacific region, is operated as two divisions, and we selected a field office  from each division. The field office locations in our nonprobability sample  were:  Hawaii (Pacific Region)
Sacramento, California (Pacific Region)
Arizona (Southwest Region)
Columbia, Missouri (Great Lakes Region)
Cookeville, Tennessee (Southeast Region)
Vero Beach, Florida (Southeast Region)
Virginia (Northeast Region)
Utah (Mountain-Prairie Region)
Anchorage, Alaska (Alaska Region)
Fairbanks, Alaska (Alaska Region)
Through our interviews we obtained information on how recovery funds  are allocated, the role of the recovery priority system, and suggested  improvements to the recovery priority system. We compared the answers  we received in these interviews to documents or expenditure data provided  by the Service, to the extent this corroborating evidence was available.
In addressing both objectives, we reviewed publicly available documents  and other information obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s  Website. We also reviewed articles in academic and scientific literature  related to recovery planning and recovery prioritization, including an  extensive study of recovery plans conducted by the Society for  Conservation Biology and funded by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We performed our work from February 2004 to January 2005, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s  letter dated March 11, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. We agree that some of the recovery funds included in our analysis of  how recovery fund allocations compare with the Service’s recovery  guidelines include funds for which Congress has provided direction  that they be spent on particular projects or species. However, we do not  believe that by including these funds we have underestimated the  degree to which the Service’s funding decisions are consistent with its  recovery priority guidelines.  First, we found that the Service spent its  recovery funds in a manner generally consistent with species priority.  Second, we analyzed a list, provided to us by the Service, of  congressionally directed funds and associated projects for fiscal years  2000 through 2003. We compared this list with the priority rankings of  the species associated with the projects in a way similar to how we  compared species’ expenditures and priority rankings in our report. We  found that the list of congressionally directed funds resulted in a  spending pattern similar to what we identified when we compared  species’ expenditures and priority rankings in our report. Thus, by  including these funds in our analysis of how recovery funds allocations  compare with the Service’s recovery guidelines, we do not believe that  we have underestimated the degree to which the Service’s funding  decisions are consistent with its recovery priority guidelines. 2. We agree that the Endangered Species Act does not require it to report  separately on how it spent its recovery funds by species. However,  reporting this information could be part of an effective strategy to help  ensure that the Service allocates recovery resources consistent with  the priority guidelines over the long term and in a transparent fashion.
3.
In our report, we use the term “imperiled” instead of “threatened” to  avoid confusion with the distinction the act makes between  “threatened species” and “endangered species.” We agree that the act  does not state that the purpose for requiring the Service to establish  guidelines for prioritizing the development and implementation of  recovery plans was to address concerns that recovery funds were not  being directed at the most imperiled species. We have modified the  report accordingly.
However, we disagree with the Department’s contention that its  recovery priority guidelines do not provide that funding should be  allocated preferentially to species with the highest priority ranking as  depicted in table 2 of our report. The Department relies on a table in the  guidelines that is virtually identical to table 2 in our report to describe  its priority system. Section 4(h)(4) of the act specifically directs the  Service to establish guidelines that shall include “a system for  developing and implementing, on a priority basis, recovery plans under  subsection (f) of this section.” Further, the guidelines state that “the  species with the highest degree of threat have the highest priority for  preparing and implementing recovery plans.” In addition, the guidelines  state that they are to “aid in determining how to make the most  appropriate use of resources available to implement the act.”
The Department also contends that allocating funding preferentially to  species with the highest priority ranking is contrary to section  4(f)(1)(A) of the act. This provision, which was added in a 1982  amendment to the act, states that recovery plans shall, to the maximum  extent practicable, give priority to species most likely to benefit from  such plans, particularly those that are, or may be, in conflict with  construction or other development projects, or other forms of  economic activity. The guidelines specifically state that the priority  system established by the guidelines “is intended to satisfy the  requirements of the amended Act.” Accordingly, the guidelines include  likelihood to benefit from recovery plans and conflict as factors.
We agree with the Department that focusing on opportunities for  partnerships where multiple parties will work to the benefit of the  species is consistent with section 4(f)(1)(A) of the act. In fact, we  conclude in our report that the Service’s ability to be flexible in  allocating its scarce recovery resources is the key to maximizing  contributions from other organizations. However, we believe that this  flexibility needs to occur within the bounds of a systematic and  transparent process and make recommendations to this effect.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Charles Egan, Jaelith Hall- Rivera, Barry T. Hill, Summer Pachman, Paula Bonin, Judy Pagano, and  Cynthia Norris made key contributions to this report.