Download Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act

Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act:
Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities
MARCO RESTANI* AND JOHN M. MARZLUFF
Ecosystem Sciences Division, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A.
Abstract: Budget constraints require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prioritize species for recovery spending. Each listed species is ranked according to the degree of threat it faces, its recovery potential, and its taxonomic distinctness. We analyzed state and federal government expenditures for recovery of threatened and
endangered birds (n 85 species) from 1992 to 1995 to determine if the priority system was being followed.
Although recovery spending correlated with priority rank, priority rank explained 5% of the variation in
spending. A small number of the same moderately ranked species dominated expenditures each year (41–
79% of total annual budgets). Species with wide distributions, high recovery potential, and captive breeding
programs received the most funding, and more funding than their priority ranks dictated. Island species received significantly less funding than expected based on priority rank. Twelve species, 10 of which resided on
islands, received $5000 at least once from 1992 to 1995. Recovery spending was unrelated to degree of
threat, taxonomic distinctness, and migratory status. There also was no relationship between land-purchase
expenditures and priority ranks. To improve the relationship between recovery spending on threatened and
endangered birds and their priority rank, significant changes need to be made within the private sector (less
litigation and special-interest lobbying ), U.S. Congress (increased budget and reduced earmarking ), and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (restructuring of regional offices and increased accountability).
Conservación de Aves bajo el Acta de Especies En Peligro: Prioridades Entre Gastos versus Recuperación
Resumen: Las restricciones presupuestales requieren que el Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de EE.UU. de
prioridad a especies para los gastos de recuperación. Cada especie enlistada es ubicada en un rango de acuerdo al grado de amenaza que enfrenta, su potencial de recuperación y la distintividad taxonómica. Analizamos los gastos de los gobiernos estatales y federales para la recuperación de aves amenazadas y en peligro (n 85 especies) de 1992 a 1995 para determinar si el sistema de prioridades ha sido seguido. A pesar de que los
gastos estuvieron correlacionados con el rango de prioridad, el rango de prioridad solo explicó 5% de la
variación en el gasto. Un pequeño número de las mismas especies con rango moderado dominó los gastos de
cada año (41–79% del presupuesto anual total). Las especies con distribuciones amplias, alto potencial de recuperación y programas de reproducción en cautiverio recibieron la mayoría de los recursos y relativamente
más financiamiento de lo establecido por sus rangos de prioridad. Especies insulares recibieron significativamente menos financiamiento que el esperado en base a su rango de prioridad. Doce especies, 10 de las cuales
residen en islas, recibieron $5,000 dólares por lo menos una vez entre 1992–1995. Los gastos para recuperación no estuvieron relacionados con el grado de amenaza, la distintividad taxonómica, ni el estatus migratorio. Tampoco existió relación entre gastos de compra de tierra y el rango de prioridad. Para mejorar la relación entre los gastos de recuperación en aves amenazadas y en peligro y los rangos de prioridad, es
necesario realizar cambios significativos dentro del sector privado (menos litigación, cabildeo de intereses especiales), en el Congreso de EE.UU. (incrementar el presupuesto, reducir apartados) y en el Servicio de Pesca
y Vida Silvestre de EE.UU. (reestructuración de las oficinas regionales, incrementar responsabilidades).
* Current address: Department of Biology, Rocky Mountain College, Billings, MT 59102–1796, U.S.A., email [email protected]
Paper submitted May 1, 2000; revised manuscript accepted April 4, 2001.
1292
Conservation Biology, Pages 1292–1299
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001
Restani & Marzluff
Recovery Expenditures for Endangered Birds
Introduction
Over 1000 (11%) of the world’s bird species are critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable (Smith et
al. 1993; World Conservation Union 1996). In the United
States, 97 bird species are listed as either threatened or
endangered and receive federal protection under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). But listing under the
ESA does not ensure the recovery or even persistence of
a species: six birds have gone extinct while listed. Recovery of endangered species requires planning, prioritization, and coordinated spending so that the species
most likely to go extinct without human intervention
are identified and receive recovery attention ahead of
less vulnerable species (Carroll et al. 1996). Failure to set
and follow priorities may increase the likelihood that
more species will join the 115 that have gone extinct
worldwide in the past 400 years ( Johnson & Stattersfield
1990; Pimm et al. 1994; Steadman 1995).
The growing number of threatened and endangered
species, coupled with relatively static budgets and limited staffing for recovery programs, underscores the
need to follow a priority system (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988; Tobin 1990; Dobson et al. 1997b; Baker
1999). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) uses a
biologically sound system to prioritize listed species to
guide allocation of expenditures for the development
and implementation of recovery plans (USFWS 1983).
Species are ranked based on degree of threat, recovery
potential, and taxonomic distinctness (Table 1). In addition to numerical ratings, any species whose recovery
will conflict with economic development receives a “C”
designation. Category C species have priority over similar numerically ranked species.
Table 1. Ranking system adopted in 1983 and currently used by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for recovery of threatened and
endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
Recovery
Degree of threat potential
High
high
low
Moderate
high
low
Low
high
low
Taxonomic
distinctness
Priority rank
monotypic genus
species
subspecies
monotypic genus
species
subspecies
monotypic genus
species
subspecies
monotypic genus
species
subspecies
monotypic genus
species
subspecies
monotypic genus
species
subspecies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1293
The USFWS priority system has not been followed. In
1988 the General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed the
endangered species program and formally criticized recovery efforts of the USFWS because the agency allocated most funds to species with “high public appeal” or
to those “approaching recovery,” regardless of priority
rank. Although the USFWS disputed the primary GAO
findings, the agency acknowledged that congressional
earmarking of budgets, cooperative opportunities for
management, and state and regional interests negatively
affected its ability to reconcile recovery spending with
priority rank.
Despite contentious, philosophical debates over the
application of triage in wildlife conservation, austere
budgets make tradeoffs in recovery of endangered species a reality (Tobin 1990; Mann & Plummer 1995; Baker
1999). Scientific, political, and social interactions produce two primary tradeoffs: which species to recover
and which recovery strategies to employ (e.g., habitat
protection, removal of exotic species, captive propagation). It remains unclear how these tradeoffs affect the
primary goal of the ESA “to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” Ignoring some species in favor of others probably
has severe negative effects because the median population size of vertebrates at listing (1075) is close to the
number at which captive breeding (1000) is recommended by the World Conservation Union (Wilcove et
al. 1993).
Our broad objective was to document the allocation
pattern of species recovery expenditures for threatened
and endangered birds. We were particularly interested
in determining the relationship between priority rank
and annual expenditure. We also identified whether and
where tradeoffs exist in the USFWS recovery program.
We determined which species received the most and
least annual funding and discuss potential consequences
for the conservation of avian biodiversity. We assumed
that lack of funding directed toward individual species
increases their vulnerability to extinction because we
know that recovery spending does improve a species’
status ( J. Miller et al., unpublished data). Our analysis
identifies the bird groups most vulnerable under current
spending patterns, and we provide recommendations
for improving the recovery process.
Methods
We obtained data on recovery expenditures for threatened and endangered birds from federal government
documents: Federal and State Endangered Species Expenditures, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior (fiscal years 1992–1995, the most recent
available). Expenditure data were categorized by taxon
Conservation Biology
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001
1294
Recovery Expenditures for Endangered Birds
(species, subspecies, protected populations) and source
(USFWS, other federal agencies, or states). Each federal
agency reported “reasonably identifiable expenditures,”
and each state reported expenditures related to grants
received under Section 6 of the ESA (i.e., matching funds).
Federal and state expenditures included expenses associated with the development and implementation of
recovery plans, such as status surveys, research, captive
propagation, and habitat management or acquisition. Only
land-purchase data by species were reported separately,
and then only for 1993–1995. Spending related to all
other recovery activities was reported in lump sum by
species. Agencies and states reported recovery expenditures above $2000 to the nearest $500 or $1000, and expenditures of smaller amounts to the nearest $100. We
assumed that gross expenditures indexed recovery effort
because expenditures (1) included all recovery spending by federal and state agencies, (2) covered both routine and expensive management efforts, and (3) correlated with the percentage of requested funds eventually
allocated for recovery ( J. Miller et al., unpublished data).
We could not analyze the contributions of nongovernmental agencies to recovery spending because these data
were not readily available.
For each species, we obtained year of listing, status
(threatened or endangered), and priority rank (including
Category C designation) from USFWS documents (available from www.fws.gov/r9endspp [accessed 2 August
2001]). We also obtained population trends (increasing,
stable, decreasing, extinct, uncertain) of listed species
(USFWS 1995). Five species currently listed under the ESA
have gone extinct: Guam Broadbill (Myiagra freycineti ),
Mariana Mallard (Anas oustaleti ), Bachman’s Warbler
(Vermivora bachmanii ), Bridled White-eye (Zosterops
conspicillatus), and Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). The Dusky Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus nigrescens) also went extinct while
listed but was removed from the ESA in 1990. We analyzed annual recovery expenditures for the remaining 85
extant species. Range size (square kilometers) and migratory status (resident or migrant) were obtained from
standard field guides and texts (e.g., National Geographic
Society 1987). We defined island species as those restricted to either Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or any of the Mariana Islands.
First, we tested the hypothesis that a linear relationship exists between priority rank and annual recovery
funding. Higher-ranked species (low numerical scores;
Table 1) should receive the most funding. We then examined several characteristics of species that correlated
with significant deviations from the expected spending
pattern: range size, distribution (mainland vs. island),
and migratory status (migrants vs. residents). We also
evaluated the relationship between priority rank and
spending allocated to land purchases and captive breeding. Finally, we determined which of the three compo-
Conservation Biology
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001
Restani & Marzluff
nents of the USFWS priority ranking system—degree of
threat, recovery potential, and taxonomic distinctness—
contributed most to the relationship between priority
rank and recovery spending.
We pooled annual data (1992–1995) to calculate mean
annual spending for each species and used this value in
analyses unless otherwise stated. We used simple linear
regression to describe the relationships between mean
annual expenditure (1992–1995) and (1) priority rank
and (2) range size. We used Spearman rank correlation
to examine the relationship between the range size of
listed species and the standardized residuals of the linear
regression analysis. Where appropriate, we used analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and t tests to determine differences
among or between groups, respectively. We used chisquare tests to analyze categorical data (e.g., population
trend by range distribution, mainland vs. island). We used
one-tailed tests in all analyses comparing priority rank with
spending because we expected highly ranked species to
receive the most funding. We log-transformed data to satisfy assumptions of normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test)
and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test) prior to analysis (SPSS 1998), but to facilitate interpretation we have
reported untransformed means (SE) in the text and tables. Statistical significance was accepted at p 0.05.
Results
Expenditures for recovery of threatened and endangered
birds totaled $75–141 million annually. Mean annual
spending correlated with priority rank, but the relationship was weak (r 2 0.05, p 0.018) (Fig. 1). The relationship between priority rank and expenditure worsened when spending for each species was first adjusted
by range size (mean annual expenditure/range size; r 2 0.03, p 0.051) and lost statistical significance when
only mainland species were considered in the analysis
(r 2 0.03, p 0.143). It was possible that spending by
states and other federal agencies negatively affected how
well the USFWS could follow its priority system, so we
conducted similar analyses using only the USFWS expenditures; the overall relationship between spending and
priority rank improved only slightly (r 2 0.07, p 0.007). These results did not allow us to reject the null
hypothesis that funding is independent of priority rank.
Species with large ranges received more funding than
expected based on their priority rank. A positive correlation existed between range size and the standardized residuals from the linear regression between mean annual
expenditures and priority rank (Spearman r 0.40, p 0.001) (Fig. 2). This pattern was also evident when only
mainland species were considered in the analysis (Spearman r 0.34, p 0.037). A relationship also existed between mean annual spending and range size (r 2 0.15,
p 0.001) (Fig. 2).
Restani & Marzluff
Recovery Expenditures for Endangered Birds
1295
Figure 1. Simple linear regression between mean annual expenditure (1992–1995) and priority rank of
threatened and endangered birds. Little variation
(r 2 0.05) in spending is explained by priority rank,
and large sample size (n 85) produced statistical
significance (p 0.035). The relationship improved
slightly (r 2 0.07) when only spending by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service was regressed against priority rank.
Although endangered species had a higher mean priority rank than threatened species (mean 5.5 SE of 0.4
vs. 7.5 0.9; t83 2.00, p 0.048), threatened species
tended to receive more funding per species ($2,505,790 506,976 vs. 988,230 376,203; t83 1.56, p 0.061).
A three-way ANOVA of annual spending by degree of
threat, recovery potential, and taxonomic distinctness
(components of the USFWS priority system) revealed
that recovery potential ( p 0.001) was the only variable contributing to overall model significance (F12,72 2.59, p 0.006). Species with high recovery potential
received more funding ($1,621,071 506,976) than
those with low recovery potential ($206,044 67,463).
Distribution of species (island or mainland) was more
important to funding level than migratory status (resident or migrant). Mainland species received a mean of
10 times more funding per species for recovery than island species ($2,496,609 797,994 vs. 220,729 41,889) (two-way ANOVA; F3,81 11.24, p 0.001), despite the two groups having similar mean priority ranks
(t83 0.68, p 0.494). More mainland than island species showed increasing population trends, and fewer
showed decreasing population trends ( 23 18.33, p 0.001). Resident and migrant species received similar
levels of funding (two-way ANOVA; p 0.722).
The 10 species that received the most recovery funds
annually remained remarkably constant each year (Table
2). Of these species, 5 showed increasing population
trends and 4 showed decreasing trends; the population
Figure 2. (a) Spearman rank correlation between
standardized residuals of the simple linear regression
between expenditures and priority rank (Fig. 1) and
range size of threatened and endangered birds (r 0.40, p 0.001). (b) Simple linear regression between
mean annual expenditures (1992–1995) and range
size of threatened and endangered birds (r 2 0.15,
p 0.001).
trend of 1 species was uncertain. None resided on islands. Twelve species received $5000 at least 1 year
from 1992 to 1995, and none had increasing population
trends (6 stable, 3 decreasing, 3 uncertain) (Table 3). All
but two resided on islands. The 10 best-funded species
had a mean priority rank (6.3 1.3) similar to that of
the 12 least-funded species (8.5 1.2) (t20 1.26, p 0.110).
Land-purchase expenditures totaled $29,734,000 (12%
of the total 1993–1995 recovery budget) and were directed toward acquiring habitat for 38 of 85 species.
There was a weak positive relationship between total
land-purchase expenditure (1993–1995) and the priority
rank of listed species (r 2 0.08, p 0.043, n 38).
Agencies acquired lands mostly for Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; $7,345,800) and American Peregrine
Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum; $5,100,100). Among
Conservation Biology
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001
1296
Table 2.
Recovery Expenditures for Endangered Birds
Restani & Marzluff
The 10 threatened and endangered birds receiving the most annual recovery expenditures in the United States, 1992–1995.
Species
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Northern Spotted Owl
Bald Eagle
Marbled Murrelet
American Peregrine Falcon
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Mexican Spotted Owl
Whooping Crane
Least Bell’s Vireo
California Least Tern
Mean annual
expenditure ($)
Years in top 10 a
Priority rankb
24,972,820
16,459,410
8,869,650
8,183,670
5,458,110
4,223,870
2,753,530
2,733,570
2,427,000
2,289,640
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
1993, 1994, 1995
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
1994, 1995
1993, 1994, 1995
1992, 1993, 1994
1992, 1993, 1994
1992
8C
9C
14C
3
9
3C
9C
2C
3C
3
a
The Marbled Murrelet was placed on the endangered species list in 1992. Both the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and the Mexican Spotted
Owl were listed in 1993.
b
See Table 1 for a description of priority ranks. Species whose recovery will conflict with economic development carry the “C” designation and
have priority over similar numerically ranked species.
all listed species, lands were purchased more often than
expected for species with increasing population trends
and less often for species with decreasing trends (22 6.46, p 0.039). Lands were purchased less often than
expected for island species and more often than expected for mainland species (22 6.96, p 0.008).
Captive breeding programs existed for 15 species. Although captive-bred and other species had similar mean
priority ranks (4.9 1.0 vs. 6.1 0.4) (t83 1.46, p 0.075), expenditures were greater for species bred in
captivity than for other species ($1,746,280 618,631
vs. 1,129,303 437,121) (t83 3.34, p 0.001). Seven
species bred in captivity showed increasing population
trends, 4 showed decreasing trends, 3 were stable, and
the trend of 1 was uncertain.
Discussion
A few species, such as Bald Eagle, American Peregrine
Falcon, Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis), and Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), consistently re-
Table 3.
ceived the bulk (41–79% annually) of available recovery
funds. This spending pattern reaffirmed a long-standing
criticism of endangered species conservation, that charismatic species dominate agency recovery efforts (Tobin
1990; Rohlf 1991; Losos 1993). Our analysis also revealed that these species have priority ranks similar to
the 12 least-funded species. Concentration of spending
on moderately ranked species had a profound negative
effect on the relationship between priority rank and recovery spending. Moreover, spending on these species
probably affected the recovery potential of the large
number of higher ranked species, because the recovery
budget is insufficient to fund the recovery of all listed
species (General Accounting Office 1988; Dobson et al.
1997b; Baker 1999). Many listed species have existing
population sizes of 1000 or fewer individuals (Wilcove
et al. 1993) and may continue to have low long-term viability if current spending patterns do not change. Highly
ranked species that received limited funds were narrowly distributed island endemics.
It is universally acknowledged that island birds are
more vulnerable to extinction than mainland birds
Threatened and endangered birds in the United States that received less than $5000 for recovery at least 1 year during 1992–1995.
Species
Distribution
Kauai Akialoa
White-necked Crow
Micronesia Megapode
Tinian Monarch
Puerto Rican Nightjar
Kauai O’o
Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow
San Clemente Sage Sparrow
Large Kauai Thrush
Small Kauai Thrush
Inyo California Towhee
Nightingale Warbler
island
island
island
island
island
island
mainland
island
island
island
mainland
island
Year(s)
Priority rank*
1993
1992, 1993, 1994
1992, 1993
1992
1993
1992
1993, 1994
1992
1992, 1993
1993
1993, 1995
1993
5
17
8
14
5C
4
12C
9
5
5
9C
9
*See Table 1 for a description of priority ranks. Species whose recovery will conflict with economic development carry the “C” designation and
have priority over similar numerically ranked species.
Conservation Biology
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001
Restani & Marzluff
( Johnson & Stattersfield 1990; Pimm et al. 1993; Bibby
1994; World Conservation Union 1996), yet recovery allocations have overlooked island species. Island species received a mean of 10 times less funding than mainland species and never appeared on the list of the 10
best-funded birds. Moreover, 10 of 12 species receiving
$5000 per year occurred on islands, and none of these
species showed increasing population trends. The conservation of island birds is a daunting and expensive task
that may require managers to simultaneously address
habitat loss, exotic species, and disease (Scott et al.
1988; Rodda et al. 1998). More management attention is
needed to stabilize or reverse the decline of these species if they are to persist. High levels of endemism on islands also justifies intensive recovery effort.
It is possible that wide-ranging mainland species received more funding than expected based on their priority rank, because such species simply require more funds
than range-restricted island endemics. This is unlikely for
four reasons, however. First, island property is often
sought for its development potential by international clients, so land prices on islands often exceed those on the
mainland (Ando et al. 1998). Second, island recovery programs usually require long-term and costly control or removal of exotic species. For example, removing feral ungulates or mosquitoes from Hawaii or controlling brown
tree snakes (Boiga irregularis) on Guam would cost tens
of millions of dollars (National Research Council 1992,
1997). These costs dwarf most mainland recovery expenses. Third, even after habitat is purchased and exotic
species are removed, most currently endangered island
species will require expensive captive propagation and
reintroduction programs to recover fully. Finally, research
and management often cost more on islands than on the
mainland because the costs of travel, living, equipment,
and supply are inflated on remote islands with limited access and rudimentary commercial infrastructures.
Long-term conservation is best achieved through largescale habitat protection ( Johnson & Stattersfield 1990;
Franklin 1993; Carroll et al. 1996; Wilcove et al. 1998).
Lands that are purchased to protect individual threatened and endangered species may harbor and thus benefit other listed species or regionally rare and sensitive
species (i.e., may provide umbrella protection). Although
federal and state agencies devoted approximately 12% of
annual recovery budgets toward land purchase, no relationship existed between land-purchase expenditures
and priority rank. In fact, 41% of the funds allocated to
land purchase from 1993 to 1995 was directed toward
the Bald Eagle and American Peregrine Falcon, two
wide-ranging species with relatively broad habitat requirements whose primary population-limiting factor
was organochlorine pesticides (Grier 1982; Cade et al.
1988). Flather et al. (1998) believe that it is unlikely that
these wide-ranging generalists provided umbrella protection to many other threatened and endangered spe-
Recovery Expenditures for Endangered Birds
1297
cies because nearly 60–80% of eagle and falcon ranges
occur outside of endangerment hotspots. Habitat purchased for several other species, many with high priority
ranks such as the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica
chrysoparia) and Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapillus), likely benefited only targeted species because they
occur in geographic areas with few other endangered
organisms (Dobson et al. 1997a; Flather et al. 1998; N.
Myers et al. 2000b).
Buying land for birds in biodiversity hotspots, such as
Hawaii and southern California, would protect habitat for
many other threatened and endangered species (Dobson
et al. 1997a; Flather et al. 1998). Unfortunately, little land
was purchased in Hawaii during the 4-year period we analyzed, and none was purchased in Puerto Rico or the Mariana Islands, two other areas with a large number of endangered birds and a high degree of endemism (Rodda et
al. 1998). Even after variable land costs across the United
States are accounted for, land purchases within diversity
hotspots would be cost- and conservation-effective (Ando
et al. 1998). But land purchases alone will not improve
the circumstances of many island species, because their
primary limiting factors (e.g., exotics, disease) can be addressed only through well-funded, concentrated recovery
actions (Wilcove & Chen 1998; J.H. Myers et al. 2000a).
Intensive recovery efforts directed at wide-ranging forest specialists, such as Spotted Owls and Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers, have probably protected some other
components of forest ecosystems by prompting changes
in land-management policy at the landscape scale (e.g.,
the Northwest Forest Plan, which oversees 24 million
acres; Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
1993). But temperate forests harbor fewer endangered
species than tropical forests (Dobson et al. 1997a; N.
Myers et al. 2000b), and their protection probably produces the most benefit by proactively maintaining plant
and wildlife populations above vulnerable levels. The effects of agriculture, urbanization, invasive species, and
recreation contribute most to species endangerment
(Czech & Krausman 1997; Flather et al. 1998; Wilcove et
al. 1998), and a greater emphasis is needed on protecting ecosystems experiencing such threats.
Recovery strategies for 15 species (18% of the total
listed) involved captive breeding. Captive-bred species received more funding than other species, despite the two
groups having similar mean priority ranks. A more detailed
analysis of spending was not possible because federal
agencies and states were not required to account separately for expenditures related to captive breeding. Nonetheless, captive breeding is expensive and focuses on single species (Snyder et al. 1996), so its use as a recovery
tool should be considered carefully and reserved for species of highest priority. For example, the captive propagation of widely distributed and moderately or lower-ranked
species such as the Bald Eagle and American Peregrine Falcon, which has occurred for decades, is difficult to justify
Conservation Biology
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001
1298
Recovery Expenditures for Endangered Birds
because competition for funding occurs frequently between captive breeding and in situ conservation approaches such habitat protection (Snyder et al. 1996).
Current allocations favoring individual bird species or
specific groups of birds of low rank act in concert to
produce a weak relationship between annual expenditure for recovery and priority rank. This pattern was evident when federal and combined federal and state expenditures were compared to federal priorities. We
believe that significant changes in the private sector,
congressional practices, and the USFWS are needed to
improve this relationship. First, Congress must reduce
earmarking of the endangered species budget (currently
at 35–64% per year). Congressional directives favor
widely distributed species of low rank, which reduces
money available to species more in need. If Congress
wants to fund a select few species, it should publicize its
list of favored species and augment the ESA budget
rather than earmark limited funds. Second, special-interest groups must reduce litigation on high-profile, lowranking species such as spotted owls. These suits force
the USFWS to expend limited resources in court rather
than in substantive management actions. Groups who
police government agencies should focus lawsuits on
the highest-priority species and challenge the USFWS to
follow its priorities. Finally, the USFWS should improve
political representation of islands, perhaps by restructuring regional offices; increase coordination among regional offices to ensure that widely distributed species
are not overrepresented in expenditures; and promote
within-agency accountability. The USFWS should also
advertise the existence of the priority system, because
few USFWS biologists know of its existence, much less
that it should guide spending on endangered species.
Finally, despite politically charged claims of overfunding (Baker 1999), the endangered species program desperately needs a larger budget to reduce the negative consequences of choosing among species and to address
recovery of the large number of newly listed species (Carroll et al. 1996; Dobson et al. 1997b). Currently, the program provides only token protection to 14% of listed
birds (Table 3). Increasing the endangered-species budget
is an obtainable goal (Wilcove & Chen 1998), but it will
require a unified voice of conservationists demanding that
funding follow biological need. The ornithological and
conservation communities should provide leadership in
this area. Coordinating a national campaign to engage philanthropists to augment government funding so that species can be recovered based on biological rather than political needs would be a productive and positive start.
Acknowledgments
We thank S. R. Beissinger, P. Henson, S. Johnston, G. H.
Orians, and N. F. R. Snyder for valuable discussions con-
Conservation Biology
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001
Restani & Marzluff
cerning recovery of threatened and endangered species.
Comments by P. Henson, S. Johnston, R. L. Knight, and
two anonymous reviewers greatly improved this paper.
J. K. Miller and J. M. Scott kindly shared unpublished
data. E. R. Megginson provided lawsuit data from the
U.S. Justice Department.
Literature Cited
Ando, A., J. Camm, S. Polasky, and A. Solow. 1998. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–
2128.
Baker, B. 1999. Spending on the endangered species act: too much or
not enough? BioScience 49:279.
Bibby, C. J. 1994. Recent past and future extinctions in birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 344:
35–40.
Cade, T. J., J. H. Enderson, C. G. Thelander, and C. M. White. 1988.
Peregrine Falcon populations: their management and recovery.
The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho.
Carroll, R., C. Augspurger, A. Dobson, J. Franklin, G. Orians, W. Reid,
R. Tracy, D. Wilcove, and J. Wilson. 1996. Strengthening the use of
science in achieving the goals of the Endangered Species Act: an assessment by the Ecological Society of America. Ecological Applications 6:1–11.
Czech, B., and P. R. Krausman. 1997. Distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United States. Science 277:1116–1117.
Dobson, A. P., J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, and D. S. Wilcove.
1997a. Geographic distribution of endangered species in the
United States. Science 275:550–554.
Dobson, A. P., J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, and D. S. Wilcove.
1997b. Response: distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United States. Science 277:1117.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment.
U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
Flather, C. H., M. S. Knowles, and I. A. Kendall. 1998. Threatened and
endangered species geography. BioScience 48:365–376.
Franklin, J. F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or
landscapes? Ecological Applications 3:202–205.
General Accounting Office. 1988. Endangered species: management
and improvements could enhance recovery program. GAO/RCED–
85–5, Washington, D.C.
Grier, J. W. 1982. Ban of DDT and subsequent recovery of reproduction in Bald Eagles. Science 218:1232–1235.
Johnson, T. H., and A. J. Stattersfield. 1990. A global review of island
endemic birds. Ibis 132:167–180.
Losos, E. 1993. The future of the U.S. endangered species act. Trends
in Ecology and Evolution 8:332–336.
Mann, C. C., and M. L. Plummer. 1995. Noah’s choice: the future of endangered species. Knopf, New York.
Myers, J. H., D. Simberloff, A. M. Kuris, and J. R. Carey. 2000a. Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 15:316–320.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca,
and J. Kent. 2000b. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858.
National Geographic Society. 1987. Field guide to the birds of North
America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1992. Scientific bases for preservation of
the Hawaiian Crow. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1997. Scientific bases for preservation of
the Mariana Crow. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Pimm, S. L., J. Diamond, T. M. Reed, G. J. Russell, and J. Verner. 1993.
Times to extinction for small populations of large birds. Proceed-
Restani & Marzluff
ings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of
America 90:10871–10875.
Pimm, S. L., M. P. Moulton, and L. J. Justice. 1994. Bird extinctions in
the central Pacific. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, Series B 344:27–33.
Rodda, G. H., E. W. Campbell III, and S. R. Derrickson. 1998. Avian
conservation in the Mariana Islands, Western Pacific Ocean. Pages
367–381 in J. M. Marzluff and R. Sallabanks, editors. Avian conservation: research and management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Rohlf, D. J. 1991. Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species
Act doesn’t work—and what to do about it. Conservation Biology
5:273–282.
Scott, J. M., C. B. Kepler, C. van Riper, and S. I. Fefer. 1988. Conservation of Hawaii’s vanishing avifauna. BioScience 38:238–253.
Smith, F. D. M., R. M. May, R. Pellew, T. H. Johnson, and K. R. Walter.
1993. How much do we really know about the current extinction
rate? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8:375–378.
Snyder, N. F. R., S. R. Derrickson, S. R. Beissinger, J. W. Wiley, T. B. Smith,
W. D. Toone, and B. Miller. 1996. Limitations of captive breeding in
endangered species recovery. Conservation Biology 10:338–348.
SPSS. 1998. SPSS base 8.0 for Windows. User’s guide. Chicago.
Recovery Expenditures for Endangered Birds
1299
Steadman, D. W. 1995. Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific island birds:
biodiversity meets zooarchaeology. Science 267:1123–1131.
Tobin, R. J. 1990. The expendable future: U.S. politics and the protection of biological diversity. Duke University Press, Durham, North
Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery priority guidelines. Federal Register 48:
43098, 51985.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Report to Congress: endangered
and threatened species recovery program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C.
Wilcove, D. S., and L. Y. Chen. 1998. Management costs for endangered species. Conservation Biology 12:1405–1407.
Wilcove, D. S., M. McMillan, and K. C. Winston. 1993. What exactly is
an endangered species? An analysis of the U.S. Endangered Species
List: 1985–1991. Conservation Biology 7:87–93.
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998.
Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–615.
World Conservation Union. 1996. 1996 IUCN red list of threatened animals. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Conservation Biology
Volume 15, No. 5, October 2001