The Service Spends a Significant Portion of Recovery Funds on the Highest Priority Species

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. 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. The Service Considers Factors Besides Species Priority When Allocating Recovery Funds but Does Not Assess the Results of Its Funding Decisions

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. 9). 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. Conclusions

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. There are few easy  solutions. Recommendations for Executive Action

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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.