1 Costs shared between the loggerhead turtle and the Atlantic green turtle have been allocated equally. 2 Costs have been taken from the 1980 plan. Although many of the tasks are similar, the 1985 revision contains few cost estimates. While both plans name the same areas to be 'protected' or 'secured' only the '80 plan attaches any cost estimate to these activities. 3 An unspecified portion of this amount is shared with recovery costs of other sea turtles. 4 The Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin covers only tasks in the upper basin excluding the San Juan River. Separate plans were prepared for the Colorado Squawfish, Humpback Chub and Bonytail Chub but they were not included in calculations in this report and were treated as a group here with the razorback sucker. Recovery costs outside of those covered by the Implementation Program for upper basin fish as referred to in the squawfish plan are not reflected in this figure. Arctic Peregrine Falcon-Proposed for delisting. FWS Director Mollie Beattie attributed its recovery to the banning of DDT which is unrelated to the Endangered Species Act. 6 McKittrick Pennyroyal-delisted recently as a "data error" because FWS discovered it was more plentiful than originally believed. It has not been included in the calculations for total, average and median costs of recovery plans. Plans having no estimated costs (beginning with the Alabama Lamp Pearly Mussel) were not included in the calculations of total, average and median costs. RECOVERY PLAN ESTIMATES VS. ACTUAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES As you refer to the chart on the following page, note that figures in columns A and B are in constant '94 dollars. Column B reveals some of the government expenditures on selected species over the three year period 1989-1991 and do not reflect any of the expenditures made outside that period. Column D reveals that some of the species have been listed for more than two decades. Column C shows by percentage the large discrepancy between the cost estimates in recovery plans (column A) and in actual expenditures (column B) during a single three year period. These discrepancies may result from several factors including: • Many of the costs identified in column B are for activities other than recovery such as actions taken pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act—and may not be identified in a recovery plan • Many actions called for in recovery plans have no associated cost estimate • Many actions in plans are deemed 'continuous,' but cost estimates are only provided for a short, designated period of time, usually three years. • Many of the actions in recovery plans are likely underestimated • Many plans have an interim goal such as 'stabilizing a population' and do not reflect the cost of recovering a species in accordance with the law Additionally, it is important to note that the figures in column B do not represent a complete accounting of the total cost of the respective endangered or threatened species over the period 1989 - 1991. These are the only figures currently available but do not include any costs borne by the private sector. Additionally, these costs may not present a complete picture of governmental (federal, state, county or local) expenditures on the respective species during the three year interval as is revealed in the report from which they were drawn, "Federal and State Endangered Species Expenditures, for the Fiscal Years 1991, 1990 &1989, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service." The FWS report states: "A good faith effort was made to develop species by species expenditures for this report. |