Costs of listing a species

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.

* * *

* * *

State environmental policy
U.S. environmental policy
Endangered species policy
State endangered species
Federal land policy
Environmental terms

The costs of listing a species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can include government costs and the opportunity costs to private groups that are involved.

The average cost of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's legally required findings before it can list a species was approximately $139,966 per action as of April 2016 (based on averages published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The average cost of a final listing action was $305,000. The work involved with these listing actions include gathering and assessing scientific and commercial data, conducting analysis used to list a species, and reviewing public and peer review comments on proposed listings.[1]

The total costs and benefits of listing a species under the Endangered Species are unknown and involve variables that are difficult to quantify. The benefits of listing species can include the value of maintaining biodiversity. This benefit can be difficult to measure and compare to the public and private costs. In addition, the costs of listing species are not easily measured because it can be difficult to calculate the exact opportunity costs—the foregone economic and private activities—of listing a species.

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 1.1 Listing a species
* 1.2 Listing and costs
* 2 Government costs
* 2.1 Listing budget
* 2.2 Listing activities
* 2.3 Critical habitat designation
* 2.4 Petitions and foreign listing
* 2.5 Candidate conservation
* 3 Private costs
* 3.1 Opportunity costs
* 4 Legal challenges
* 4.1 Costs of litigation
* 5 See also
* 6 Footnotes

## Background[edit]

### Listing a species[edit]

Before a species is added to the federal list, it is placed on a list of candidates species.[2]

The listing process can begin in two ways. First, any U.S. citizen or organization may petition to list a species. Public petitions must include scientific and commercial information about the species that is proposed for listing. The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to base its listing decisions on the best available scientific information rather than costs or economic impact. This scientific information can be collected and published by any individual or organization. The exact costs of gathering, preparing, and publishing information for a petition were unavailable as of August 2016. These costs can also vary depending on the species.[2]

Second, biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service can study a species whose population may be in decline and determine whether the species qualifies for the federal list. The Fish and Wildlife Service's scientists must use the best available scientific information collected from several sources to justify their listing decision.[2]

### Listing and costs[edit]

When Congress wrote the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, it prioritized the preservation of species and their habitats rather than the economic costs to listing. As the ESA states, listing determinations are to be made "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available." In its decision in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978), U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ESA mandated the reversal of species extinction with regard to cost. The court argued that the ESA did not allow the federal government to make listing decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis. The ruling halted the completion of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee in order to protect the critical habitat of the snail darter—a fish species.[3]

In response, Congress amended the ESA in 1978 requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the economic effects of designating critical habitat—specific geographic areas that are determined to be essential to a listed species' survival. In addition, Congress passed a provision that established the Endangered Species Committee, a federal body that can exempt projects from certain ESA requirements based on economic considerations.[3]

## Government costs[edit]

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires a federal listing program, which is operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The listing program received $20.5 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2015 for the following four activities:

1. responding to petitions requesting the listing of a species
2. listing foreign animal and plant species
3. listing domestic animal and plant species (which includes collecting the information that is used to list a species)
4. designating critical habitat, which are areas used for species conservation

The Fish and Wildlife Service cannot spend more for the listing program than what Congress provides each year. In any given fiscal year, the Fish and Wildlife Service considers different factors before it initiates work in the listing program. Factors include funding, time, and the species that have been prioritized over others.[2]

### Listing budget[edit]

The table below contains budget information from the U.S. Department of the Interior for the Fish and Wildlife Service's listing program between fiscal years 2013 and 2015. It also contains information on the agency's equivalent of full-time employees.

In fiscal year 2015, the Fish and Wildlife Service spent $20.5 million on the listing program, the same amount Congress enacted in fiscal year 2014. The program had the same number of employees in 2015—121 full-time employees (this does not include private individuals or organizations or state government officials that may have consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service on listing decisions).[4]

Fish and Wildlife Service appropriations and FTEs for the listing program (FY 2013 to FY 2015)

Category  | 2015 (enacted)  | 2014 (enacted)  | 2013 (enacted)
Appropriations amount  | FTEs  | Appropriations amount  | FTEs  | Appropriations amount  | FTEs
Critical habitat | $4,605,000 | 35 | $4,605,000 | 35 | $4,548,000 | 41
Listing | $12,905,000 | 76 | $12,905,000 | 76 | $13,453,000 | 78
Foreign listing | $1,504,000 | 5 | $1,504,000 | 5 | $1,498,000 | 6
Petitions | $1,501,000 | 5 | $1,501,000 | 5 | $1,498,000 | 6
Total | $20,515,000 | 121 | $20,515,000 | 121 | $20,997,000 | 131
Sources: U.S. Department of the Interior, "Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2013"
U.S. Department of the Interior, "Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014"
U.S. Department of the Interior, "Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2016"

### Listing activities[edit]

Listing activities totaled $12.9 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2015\. The specific work that goes into listing activities includes the following:[5]

* Gathering, assessing, and analyzing the scientific and commercial data available about a species
* Writing and publishing documents
* Obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on a proposed listing

The service's other listing activities include the following:

* The service's own proposals to list a species
* Final decisions to list or not list a species
* 90-day and 12-month findings, which are documents responding to listing petitions received by the service each year
* Changes to the status of a listed species (from endangered to threatened or vice versa)
* Program management (such as preparing budgets, working with Congress, and conducting public outreach)

Listing determinations must contain biological information about the species, its population information, habitat requirements, historic and current range, its taxonomy, threats to the species, examples of recent conservation efforts (if available), and "a preview of actions" that will be regulated if the species is listed. After the Fish and Wildlife Service determines whether or not to list a species, it must also publish a notice of review. The notice identifies the species being considered for listing and is a request for biological and commercial information from the public. The service may use this outside information as it conducts a more extensive status review for the species. The notices are published in the Federal Register. Status reviews and notices receive federal funding as listing activities.[5][6]

The information below summarizes the different documents produced by the Fish and Wildlife Service during the listing process:

* 90-day finding: The Fish and Wildlife Service must publish a finding—commonly called a 90-day finding—within 90 days of receiving a petition to list a species, which is legally required by the Endangered Species Act. A 90-day finding is a decision about whether substantial information exists to qualify a species for a place on the federal list. If the information exists, the service conducts another finding—commonly called a 12-month finding. As of April 2016, the average cost of preparing and publishing a 90-day finding was $39,276.[7][8]
* 12-month finding: A 12-month finding is a formal status review of a species that has been proposed for listing. The Fish and Wildlife Service must collect and analyze scientific and commercial data within 12 months, which is legally required by the Endangered Species Act. At the end of the 12-month period, the Fish and Wildlife Service again determines whether the listing of a species is warranted or not. If the listing is warranted, the Fish and Wildlife Service can publish a warranted finding, which states that the species should be listed. Warranted findings often contain the information that is used in the final listing determination. The Fish and Wildlife Service can also defer the publication of an official listing because other species receive higher priority. This deferral is known as a warranted but precluded finding. As of April 2016, the average cost of preparing and publishing a 12-month finding was $100,690. The costs of preparing and publishing warranted findings and warranted but precluded findings were not available as of April 2016.[8][9]
* Warranted but precluded finding: This finding is an official proposal to list a species though the final listing is deferred due to other priorities. If the Fish and Wildlife Service publishes a warranted but precluded finding, the service must produce new 12-month findings on each succeeding anniversary when the petition was originally filed until the agency takes further action on the proposal or decides against listing the species (the average cost of each 12-month finding, as noted above, was $100,690 as of April 2016).[8][10]

### Critical habitat designation[edit]

The Fish and Wildlife Service designates critical habitat, which include areas considered vital to a species' conservation. The designation of critical habitat activities totaled $4.6 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2015\. The average cost of a listing proposal with a critical habitat designation was $345,000 in 2015. Additionally, the average cost of an official decision to list a species with a critical habitat designation was $305,000. As of January 2015, critical habitats were designated for 704 listed species. Multiplying the average cost of listing a species with critical habitat by the above numbers, the Fish and Wildlife Service spent $457.6 million on designating critical habitat for 704 listed species as of January 2015.[5][1][11]

### Petitions and foreign listing[edit]

Petition activities and the listing of foreign species received the least amount of federal funding in the listing budget in 2015. The Fish and Wildlife Service spent $1.5 million responding to petitions to list a species in 2015. Most of this work involves addressing the service's backlog of petitions. By law the service must address all petitions requesting that a species be listed. The service had a backlog of 609 petitions and 52 candidate species to be addressed as of December 2014.[5]

The service spent $1.5 million on the listing of foreign animals and plants in 2015. Foreign species can be listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Individuals are prohibited from trading, buying, selling, or importing listed foreign animals. The service conducted 6,688 investigations into the listing of foreign animals and plants in fiscal year 2014\. The service's work involves studying a separate set of petitions to list foreign species.[5]

### Candidate conservation[edit]

Federally listed animals and plants can begin as candidate species, which are animal or plant species the Fish and Wildlife Service has determined are endangered or threatened species but are not listed due to other priorities. At the federal level, the Fish and Wildlife Service runs a program to conserve candidate species. Like the listing program, the program is funded by Congress each year. It focuses on two activities: species assessment and the management of voluntary conservation efforts. Federal officials study candidate species to collect scientific data and publish the information in the Federal Register. Those reports are collectively called the Candidate Notice of Review. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2013 Candidate Notice of Review contained information on 146 candidate species.

The table below contains budget information on spending by the Fish and Wildlife Service spent for the candidate conservation program between fiscal years 2012 and 2015. The funding is spent primarily on candidate species assessments and assistance to voluntary conservation efforts. In fiscal year 2015, the service spent $12 million on the candidate conservation program. This was an increase from the 2014 budget, which provided $11.5 million for the program. In 2015, the program was staffed by the equivalent of 75 full-time employees. By comparison, the listing program had 121 full-time employees in 2015.

Fish and Wildlife Service appropriations and FTEs for the Candidate Conservation Program (FY 2013 to FY 2015)

2015 (enacted)  | 2014 (enacted)  | 2013 (enacted)
Appropriations amount  | FTEs  | Appropriations amount  | FTEs  | Appropriations amount  | FTEs
$12,030,000 | 75 | $11,530,000 | 75 | $11,439,000 | 74
Sources: U.S. Department of the Interior, "Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014"
U.S. Department of the Interior, "Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2016"

## Private costs[edit]

### Opportunity costs[edit]

One measure used to calculate the costs of listing to private individuals and groups is opportunity cost—the potential economic loss that private individuals face due to regulations on private activity from listing species and designating critical habitats. Opportunity costs can include less economic profit caused by regulations on development projects, lost wages caused by fewer jobs for workers, lower property tax revenue for local governments, and higher prices for consumers.

Some studies have attempted to calculate opportunity costs in specific regions due to Endangered Species Act regulations. In 2001, the U.S. Department of the Interior limited water delivery for irrigation projects in order to divert the water to protect endangered fish species in the Klamath River Basin of Oregon. The region's water users estimated that the surrounding economy would lose between $106.7 million and $222 million for the 2001 crop year due to reduced water use. A May 2001 study from Oregon State University's Agricultural and Resource Economics Department found that water restrictions for agriculture would reduce personal income in the Klamath area by $70 million and reduce total gross sales in the area by $157 million in 2001.[12][13]

## Legal challenges[edit]

### Costs of litigation[edit]

See also: Endangered Species Act litigation

Individuals and groups may legally challenge any final listing decision from the Fish and Wildlife Service in federal court. They can challenge a warranted but precluded finding, which is a decision to defer the listing of a species until further notice. The Endangered Species Act does not allow legal challenges against a petition to list a species listed or against the 90-day and 12-month findings. Some environmental groups have sued the federal government for the deferred listing of species they argued should be listed. Some property rights groups have sued the federal government for its decisions that the groups perceived as negatively affecting private property rights.[14]

Legal challenges can add costs to the listing process. Based on data it received from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee reported that around 500 lawsuits related to endangered species were filed against the federal government between 2009 and 2012. Under the Endangered Species Act, courts may also award attorney fees and paid litigation costs on behalf of individuals or groups that succeed or partially succeed in a legal case. Individuals or groups must pay attorney costs if the court considers their lawsuit frivolous.[14]

An April 2012 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office claimed that litigation costs paid on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Endangered Species Act totaled $21.2 million in 238 payments between March 2001 and September 2010. On behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (involving the Endangered Species Act), federally paid litigation costs were $1.6 million in 16 separate payments between March 2001 and September 2010. The average payment of attorneys fees and costs in cases brought under the Endangered Species Act was $24,671.[15][16]

## See also[edit]

* Environmental policy in the U.S.

* Energy policy in the U.S.

* Endangered species policy in the U.S.

* Endangered Species Act
* Implementation of the Endangered Species Act
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* Endangered species

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Fish and Wildlife Service, "50 CFR Part 17," accessed June 16, 2016
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "ESA Basics," accessed September 26, 2014
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Harvard University, "The Economics of Endangered Species: Why Less is More in the Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation," accessed August 22, 2016
4. ↑ U.S. Department of the Interior, "Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2016," accessed June 16, 2016
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 U.S. Department of the Interior, "Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Justification for Fish and Wildlife Service," accessed September 14, 2015
6. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered," accessed September 14, 2015
7. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Listing and Critical Habitat | Petition Process," February 3, 2015
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 U.S. Government Printing Office, "Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions," December 4, 2014
9. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Frequently Asked Questions - Service 12-Month Finding on Petition to List the Gopher Tortoise," July 26, 2011
10. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered," accessed September 15, 2015
11. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Critical Habitat | Frequently Asked Questions," January 12, 2015
12. ↑ U.S. Congressional Research Service, "Klamath River Basin Issues and Activities: An Overview," September 22, 2005
13. ↑ U.S. Congressional Research Service, "The Endangered Species Act and 'Sound Science,'" January 23, 2013
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Keeping Texas First, "Legal Challenges to Endangered Species Act Listing Actions: Questions and Answers," November 2014
15. ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Limited Data Available on USDA and Interior Attorney Fee Claims and Payments," April 12, 2012
16. ↑ U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, "Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Endangered Species Act Litigation and Attorney Fees," June 19, 2012

v • e

Environmental Policy

Background|

Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news

* * *

Energy and environmental news|

January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015

* * *

Environmental terms|

Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing permit • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Environmental chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental health • Environmental restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Ground-level ozone standards • Ground water • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone XL • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities List of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • Water quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Society • Wind energy

* * *

Endangered species terms|

Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • Listing petition • Species recovery • Taking a species

* * *

Environmental policy by state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Endangered species policy|

Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Act • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act

* * *

Endangered species policy by state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Environmental statistics|

Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by state • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal land ownership by state • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions by state • Superfund sites in the United States • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report

* * *

Endangered species statistics|

Endangered species by state • Endangered animals by state • Endangered plants by state • Delisted species • Top 20 federally funded species • Land acquisition funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by state

* * *

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates