Transboundary Species
Potential Impact to Species Gao ID: GAO-03-211R October 31, 2002The United States/Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expired in March 2001. As part of the preparation process for renegotiating the agreement, the United States Trade Representative requested public comment on softwood lumber trade issues between the United States and Canada and on Canadian softwood lumbering practices. The comments received included allegations that Canadian lumbering and forestry practices were affecting animal species with U.S./Canadian ranges that are listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. To consider these comments as well as provide useful information to the U.S. Trade Representative in the renegotiations, the Department of the Interior, with the Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) assistance, prepared a conservation status report on selected species that may be affected by the new agreement. GAO reviewed the FWS' preliminary conclusions and found that, in compiling the information for the Department of the Interior's 2001 conservation report for the U.S. Trade Representative, FWS relied chiefly on previously published material and internal agency documents, such as individual species recovery plans, Federal Register listing information, other administrative records, and public comments received. The report underestimates the extent of cooperation between U.S. and Canadian officials to monitor, protect, and recover transboundary populations of species listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. The report also gives little attention to certain threats to the species, such as predation, residential and commercial development, and human recreational activities, that, according to governmental wildlife officials, are equal or greater threats to transboundary species recovery than, for example, logging and logging roads.
GAO-03-211R, Transboundary Species: Potential Impact to Species
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-211R
entitled 'Transboundary Species: Potential Impact to Species' which was
released on December 03, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
October 31, 2002:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee:
United States Senate:
Subject: Transboundary Species: Potential Impact to Species:
The United States/Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expired in March
2001. As part of the preparation process for renegotiating the
agreement, the United States Trade Representative requested public
comment on softwood lumber trade issues between the United States and
Canada and on Canadian softwood lumbering practices. The comments
received included allegations that Canadian lumbering and forestry
practices were affecting animal species with U.S./Canadian ranges
(transboundary species) that are listed as threatened or endangered in
the United States. To consider these comments as well as provide useful
information to the U.S. Trade Representative in the renegotiations, the
Department of the Interior, with the Department‘s U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service‘s (FWS) assistance, prepared a conservation status
report on selected species that may be affected by the new agreement.
The status report presented summaries of information on eight
transboundary species and reached preliminary conclusions of potential
impact to four species.
You asked us to review the information and the process that Interior
used to develop the January 2001 status report as well as provide you
with updated information concerning several specific transboundary
species. Accordingly, this report describes the (1) supporting
information that FWS used and the process it followed when compiling
its information for the Department of the Interior‘s January 2001
conservation status report on selected threatened or endangered species
with U.S./Canadian ranges; and (2) existing U.S. and Canadian efforts
aimed at protecting, monitoring, and facilitating the eventual recovery
of four transboundary species--the bull trout, grizzly bear, marbled
murrelet, and woodland caribou--listed as threatened or endangered in
the United States.
On October 4, 2002, we briefed your offices on the results of our work.
This report transmits the materials used during that briefing.
Results in Brief:
In compiling the information for the Department of the Interior‘s 2001
conservation status report for the U.S. Trade Representative, the Fish
and Wildlife Service relied chiefly on previously published material
and internal agency documents, such as individual species recovery
plans, Federal Register listing information, other administrative
records, and public comments received. According to the FWS official we
contacted, FWS headquarters had to compile the report under a tight
time frame and did not have time to consult with the regional recovery
team coordinators responsible for monitoring the species or seek
updated information to supplement the information used from dated
species recovery plans. From our analysis of the report and our
discussions with U.S. and Canadian wildlife officials, we believe that
the report, among other things,
² understates the extent of cooperation between U.S. and Canadian
officials to monitor, protect, and recover transboundary populations of
species listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. In
particular, the report did not fully capture the extent of data
exchange or joint initiatives undertaken, and:
² gives little attention to certain threats to the species, such as
predation, residential and commercial development, and human
recreational activities, that, according to governmental wildlife
officials, are equal or greater threats to transboundary species
recovery than, for example, logging and logging roads.
Whereas the inclusion of such updated information has the potential to
change the details presented in the report, we do not believe that the
additional information would alter the report‘s general findings.
The United States and Canada similarly engage in processes--both on
their respective side of the border and in collaboration with one
another--aimed at protecting, monitoring, and facilitating the eventual
recovery of the bull trout, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, and
woodland caribou. Specifically, wildlife officials on each side grant
species a special protective status; outline the threats to the
species; collect diverse sources of data to monitor the species‘
habitat and population trends; undertake specific species recovery,
protection, and coordination activities; and encounter similar
obstacles in their attempts to assess the species and facilitate its
recovery. Furthermore, U.S. and Canadian officials often work in tandem
by jointly participating in conferences on species recovery issues;
consistently sharing species monitoring data and other technical
information; and for certain species like the woodland caribou, jointly
participate in the development of recovery plans.
Supplemental Information:
In addition to the presentation slides used during our briefing, we
also are enclosing the other documents discussed during that meeting
(see enc. I). Specifically, we are enclosing:
* the timetable for preparing the January 9, 2001 report (enc. II);
* the authorizing legislation and agreements related to the protection
of
species at risk in the United States and Canada (enc. III);
* the process for listing species in the United States and Canada (enc.
IV); and:
* an overview of species-specific information (enc. V).
These materials supplement the content in the presentation slides.
Scope and Methodology:
To respond to the above objectives, we met with representatives of the
Department of the Interior and FWS, the recovery coordinators for the
four species, and federal and provincial wildlife officials from
Alberta and British Columbia. We reviewed documents associated with
managing and recovering the four species. We also contacted and
obtained documents from environmental organizations and industry
associations.
The maps that we present in enclosure V do not include the historical
range or entire current range and may not be drawn to scale. We
provided the maps, however, to provide readers with a general
geographical reference to the range of habitat for these four
transboundary species.
We performed our work on this assignment from March 2002 to September
2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. A detailed description of our scope and methodology is
included as enclosure VI.
Agency Comments:
While we did not receive comments on a draft of this report, we did
hold exit conferences with the various U.S. and Canadian officials that
we met in the course of our review and obtained oral comments. During
the exit conferences we discussed the information used to develop the
briefing slides and supplemental enclosures with appropriate U.S. and
Canadian officials. Generally, the officials indicated that the
information was accurate and provided a good, general overview of their
respective species management and recovery programs. The officials also
provided some technical clarifications that we have incorporated 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 that time, copies of this report will be
available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in
this report, you may contact me at (202) 512-3841. Major contributors
to this report were Linda L. Harmon, Michael J. Rahl, and Jonathan
McMurray.
Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Barry T. Hill:
Enclosures - 6:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
[See PDF for image]
[End of section]
Enclosure II:
Time Table for Preparation of January 9, 2001 Report:
Presented below are the key dates relating the development and issuance
of the January 9, 2001 report entitled Summary of the Conservation
Status
of Selected Forest-Related Species with U.S./Canada Ranges prepared by
the Department of the Interior, with assistance of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. That report was in response to a request for
assistance
in assessing the public comments received by the U.S. Trade
Representative
regarding the environmental concerns as they relate to the
renegotiation
of the U.S./Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement.
[See PDF for image]
[End of section]
Enclosure III:
Authorizing Legislation and Agreements Related to Species at Risk:
in the United States and Canada:
Listed below are the key legislation or signed agreements that
establish the framework for endangered species protection in the United
States, in Canada, and in the provinces of Alberta and British
Columbia.
Location: U.S. Government; [Empty]; Legislation or Agreement:
* Endangered Species Act; * Migratory Bird Treaty Act; * Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; * National Forest
Management Act; * Federal Land Policy and Management Act; * National
Environmental Policy Act; * Framework for Cooperation Between the U.S.
Department of the Interior and Environment Canada in the Protection and
Recovery of Wild Species at Risk..
Location: Government of Canada; [Empty]; Legislation or Agreement:
* Species At Risk Act (federal law under consideration); * The
Fisheries Act; * Migratory Birds Convention Act; * Canadian Wildlife
Act; * National Parks Act; * Accord for the Protection of Species at
Risk (agreed to by federal/provincal/territorial agencies); * United
Nations‘ Convention on Conservation of Biological Diversity;
* Framework for Cooperation Between the U.S. Department of the
Interior and Environment Canada in the Protection and Recovery of
Wild Species at Risk..
Location: Province of Alberta; [Empty]; Legislation or Agreement:
* Wildlife Act; * Forests Act; * Fisheries Act; * Accord for the
Protection of Species at Risk..
Location: Province of British Columbia; [Empty]; Legislation or
Agreement:
* Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act; * Wildlife Act;
* Forest Land Reserve Act; * Accord for the Protection of Species at
Risk..
[End of section]
Enclosure IV:
Process for Listing Species:
The United States, the government of Canada, and the Provinces of
Alberta and British Columbia each follow a process by which individual
species are assessed and may be granted a special designation if found
to be under threat. Presented below is a brief overview of the process
that each governmental organization follows in making the decision to
list or not list a species.
U.S. Government:
* The Fish and Wildlife Service lists species as a result of initiating
an evaluation or as a result of being petitioned by an individual,
group, or agency to list a species. If petitioned, established time
frames apply.
* Ninety-day finding on sufficiency of petition information to support
whether the listing may be warranted. If so, FWS begins detailed
biological evaluation.
* Twelve-month finding, on the basis of biological information alone,
on whether the petitioned species should be listed. Self-initiated
listing based on species priority. Decision to propose listing
published in the Federal Register.
* Final rule to list or withdraw the proposed listing issued within 12
months after evaluating any additional information and public comments.
This period can be extended to a maximum of 18 months if there is a
disagreement about the sufficiency or accuracy of the available
biological data.
* Risk categories include the following:
* Endangered--a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
* Threatened--a species that is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
* Recovery plans generally to be completed within 2.5 years of listing
and reviewed/revised as information warrants.
Government of Canada:
* The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) produces the official list of Canadian species at risk.
Species are listed as the result of a four-step process.
* Eligibility of species is determined on the basis of validity of
species or subspecies, Canadian native, regularity of occurrence, and
whether species require Canadian lands or waters for a key part of
their life cycle.
* Species specialist groups develop prioritized lists of candidate
species.
* Status reports developed to assess risk of extinction. May be
commissioned by COSEWIC or submitted by any person.
* Final status determination published as the public record and
provided to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.
* Risk categories include the following:
* Extinct--a species that no longer exists.
* Extirpated--a species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada but
occurs elsewhere.
* Endangered--a species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
* Threatened--a species that is likely to become endangered if limiting
factors are not reversed.
* Special concern--a species of special concern because of
characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities
or natural events.
* Not at risk--a species that has been evaluated and found to be not at
risk.
* Data deficient--a species for which there is insufficient scientific
information to support status designation.
* The Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council accepts the
COSEWIC list and determines the priorities for recovery actions.
* Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, the
jurisdictions agree to prepare recovery strategies within specified
timelines and to report annually to the public on the status of
recovery actions across Canada.
Province of Alberta:
* The Alberta Wildlife Management Division of the Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Development ranks the general status of each
Alberta species and identifies initial priorities for species
assessment, the species for which additional data need to be collected,
and potential species needing management efforts.
* The Alberta Wildlife Management Division works with the Alberta
Conservation Association to develop a detailed status report for
species determined to potentially need management attention--“at risk“
or ’may be at risk“ species.
* The Scientific Subcommittee of the Endangered Species Conservation
Committee receives the detailed status report to perform an independent
biological assessment of the level of risk. The subcommittee‘s
recommendation regarding the level of risk is referred to the full
committee.
* The Endangered Species Conservation Committee recommends the legal
designation and protections for threatened and endangered species to
the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development.
* The Minister of Sustainable Resource Development must decide whether
to designate the species under the Wildlife Act. The Endangered Species
Conservation Committee prepares and oversees the implementation of an
initial conservation action statement for designated species
identifying actions to be taken to conserve the species while a
recovery plan is being developed.
* Risk categories include the following:
* Extinct--a species that no longer exists.
* Extirpated--a species that no longer exists in the wild in Alberta
but occur elsewhere in the wild.
* Endangered--a species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
* Threatened--a species that is likely to become endangered if limiting
factors are not reversed.
* Special concern--a species of special concern because of
characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities
or natural events.
* Data deficient--a species for which there is insufficient scientific
information to support status designation.
* Recovery plans to be completed within 2 years of listing for
threatened species, within 1 year for endangered species, and generally
reviewed/revised every 5 years.
Province of British Columbia:
* The Conservation Data Centre in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management annually assesses the degree of conservation risk for
species for the purpose of identifying those most at risk, as well as
to establish baseline ranks for each species. The Centre uses a
standard set of criteria developed over 25 years by the international
organization of NatureServe (formerly associated with the U.S. Nature
Conservancy).
* Uses a global, national, and subnational rank for the species‘ range.
Ranking assigns a risk of extinction score to each species. The
Conservation Data Centre assigns the provincial rank solely on the
basis of the status within British Columbia. NatureServe scientists
assign the global and national ranks with guidance from various experts
in North America.
* Compiles three lists of species--red, blue, and yellow--sorted by
conservation risk. The red list includes species that are legally
designated as endangered or threatened under the Wildlife Act, are
extirpated, or are candidates for such designation. The blue list
includes species not immediately threatened but of concern because of
sensitivity to human activities or natural events. The yellow list
includes all species not included on the red or blue lists.
* Risk categories include the following:
* Extinct--a species that no longer exists.
* Extirpated--a species that no longer exists in the wild in British
Columbia but occurs elsewhere.
* Endangered--a species facing imminent extirpation or extinction from
British Columbia.
* Threatened--a species that is likely to become endangered if limiting
factors are not reversed.
* Vulnerable--a species of special concern because of characteristics
that make it particularly sensitive to human activities or natural
events.
* Not at Risk--a species that has been evaluated and found to be not at
risk.
* Indeterminate--a species for which there is insufficient scientific
information to support a determination of status.
* Recovery plans are to be completed within 2 years of listing for
threatened species, and within 1 year for endangered species, and are
generally reviewed/revised every 5 years.
[End of section]
Enclosure V:
Overview of Species-Specific Information:
To identify the United States and Canadian efforts for protecting,
monitoring, and facilitating the eventual recovery of four
transboundary species listed as threatened or endangered in the United
States, we spoke with wildlife officials in the Provinces of Alberta
and British Columbia and the four Fish and Wildlife Service recovery
coordinators for the bull trout, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, and
woodland caribou. We discussed the transboundary ranges of the species,
the special designation afforded the species by these governmental
units, the threats to the species, the types of data collected to
monitor the impacts on and the population trends of the species, the
recovery and protection activities undertaken, and the coordination and
cooperative efforts between these entities.
Presented below is an overview of the results of these discussions. In
addition, we have included maps to provide the reader with an overview
of the general geographical locations that transboundary populations of
these species currently inhabit. The maps are intended only to provide
the reader with a general reference to the locations we are discussing.
The species‘ historic ranges are not indicated, nor are the maps drawn
to scale. Also, while the species-specific information is not intended
to be all-inclusive, it serves to demonstrate that wildlife officials
in both countries engage in similar activities and programs aimed at
the eventual recovery of these four species, and that they face similar
obstacles in accomplishing these goals.
Bull Trout:
Figure 1: Bull Trout‘s Transboundary Range:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Status Listing:
United States; Threatened.
Government of Canada; Not assessed.
Province of Alberta; Special concern.
Province of British Columbia; Vulnerable.
[End of table]
Threats to the Species:
* Introduction of nonnative species results in predation, competition,
displacement, and interbreeding.
* Habitat fragmentation caused by road building, culverts, dams, and/or
weirs potentially resulting in the genetic isolation of the fish
population.
* Habitat degradation and effects on water quality caused by dams and
hydroelectric operations; dewatering of streams for irrigation
purposes; and grazing, mining, legacy effects of lumbering practices,
and road development.
* Legal and illegal fishing and increased accessibility to habitat by
fishermen using available roads.
Data Collected and Used to Monitor Species Population:
* Measuring population census, population trends, and range of habitat-
-
data on redd (nests) counts, counts of fish at fish fences and by
electro fishing and snorkeling surveys; monitoring of tagged fish, and
tracking of implanted fish with radio telemetry; DNA analysis to assess
species identification and genetic classification; and quality and
quantity of habitat.
* Mortality factors--number of fish killed by environmental
occurrences,
number of legal fish harvested (creel counts); and law enforcement data
on fish illegally harvested.
Efforts to Manage Species:
* Recovery and protection activities--establish zero-take limits and
catch-and release requirements; repair or redesign culverts, dams, and
weirs; modify dam operations to allow for improved fish passage;
redesign irrigation mechanisms; increase stream buffers to reduce
siltation and lower water temperature; restrict the placement of forest
roads to reduce access by fishermen; establish temporary seasonal road
closures, stream closures, and/or adjust open season dates to protect
bull trout breeding populations; restrict types of gear or bait used;
watershed restoration activities such as restoring physical habitat and
nutrient levels; and public outreach and education to foster efforts
for protection of the species and the habitat.
* Coordination activities--British Columbia, Alberta, and Parks Canada
participate on U.S. recovery teams; joint U.S. and Canadian research
such as that being sponsored by Trout Unlimited (a group that focuses
on trout conservation), the Bonneville Power Administration, and the
Bureau of Reclamation; international symposiums resulting in documents
dealing with international ecology and management of the bull trout;
cooperative monitoring programs; joint workshops on monitoring and
evaluation; and cooperation and communications at the technical level.
Obstacles to Assessment Efforts:
* Inclement weather and instream conditions limit year-round data
collection.
* Number of staff available to monitor is limited compared to the
significant number of streams and number of distinct bull trout
populations.
* Funding.
Grizzly Bear:
Figure 2: Grizzly Bear‘s Transboundary Range:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Status Listing:
United States; Threatened.
Government of Canada; Special concern.
Province of Alberta; Under review.
Province of British Columbia; Special concern.
[End of table]
Threats to the Species:
Habitat degradation caused by mining, forestry, and agricultural
practices.
Habitat fragmentation caused by residential, commercial, and
transportation development.
* Low reproductive rate.
* Human activities--illegal hunting, recreation.
Data Collected and Used to Monitor Species Population:
* Population estimates--credible bear sightings, DNA population
inventories and radio-telemetry-based research, and annual sow with cub
count.
* Population trends--data from radio-collars looking for survivorship,
and reproductive rates.
* Mortality factors--number of bears killed by autos or trains,
harvested
legally (hunting) or illegally (poaching), destruction of problem
bears, specimens found dead.
* Species‘ response to habitat changes--research on the effects of
harvesting and road building, DNA analysis to measure mobility within
the species‘ range, data from radio-and global-positioning satellite
collars.
Efforts to Manage Species:
* Recovery and protection activities--community outreach and
educational
programs; elimination of, or restrictions on, hunting; identification,
preservation, and protection of critical habitat; modification of
forest plans to protect habitat; and modification of physical barriers.
* Coordination activities--joint participation in both U.S. and British
Columbia recovery teams; joint participation in technical committees--
such as the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, the Rocky Mountain
Grizzly Bear Planning Committee, or the Grizzly Bear Scientific
Advisory Committee; joint research and shared data; joint habitat
management mapping efforts; and the Province of British Columbia‘s
augmenting the U.S. population of grizzlies.
Obstacles to Assessment Efforts:
* Limited funding and staff availability within agencies.
* Solitary species make opportunity for sightings difficult.
* Collars and collaring activities are expensive.
* Annual hibernation limits seasonal window for tracking and
monitoring.
* Marbled Murrelet:
Figure 3: Marbled Murrelet‘s Range:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Status Listing:
United States; Threatened.
Government of Canada; Threatened.
Province of Alberta; Not applicable.
Province of British Columbia; Threatened.
[End of table]
Threats to the Species:
* Habitat losses and fragmentation caused by harvesting of old growth
timber and fires. Existing trees may take more than 100 years to become
old growth (old growth being trees 140 to 250+ years old).
* Nest predation by crows, jays, ravens, squirrels, and mice.
* Oil spills--major occurrences.
* Entanglement in fishing nets while searching for food.
* Low reproductive rate.
Data Collected and Used to Monitor Species Population:
* Population census and trends--“at sea“ bird counts; marine radar
counts; field surveys to determine habitat usage; capturing and banding
to measure adult survival and to track movement; monitoring habitat and
nesting use; developing habitat maps from satellite images and forest
cover maps; and radio telemetry to monitor habitat use, nesting
success, and movement.
* Mortality--observer surveys to determine number of birds caught in
fishing nets, number of birds killed in major oil spills, and number of
eggs or young found dead on the ground.
Efforts to Manage Species:
* Recovery and protection activities--interagency implementation of the
Pacific Northwest Forest Plan; establishing wildlife habitat protection
measures in known nesting areas; modifying fishing nets to reduce
entanglements; outlawing monofilament fishing nets in British Columbia;
exchanging lands to protect habitat; Canadian timber purchasers
voluntarily deferring the harvesting of old growth timber; encouraging
use of habitat conservation plans; excluding net fishing in key
murrelet concentration areas in the Puget Sound; and considering
habitat in land use planning activities.
* Cooperative activities--joint participation in the Pacific Seabird
Group and its Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee; international
agreement on gill net fishers to minimize the number of birds caught in
fishing nets; joint oil spill strategy to respond to spills;
collaborative research efforts; annual and ad hoc workshops; informal
communications to share program and research information; interagency
teams to assess effectiveness monitoring; changing management actions
at national and state parks--for example, changing the timing of
operations, and finding better ways to manage garbage; using different
silvicultural techniques to accelerate habitat growth; and the use of
Pacific Seabird Group protocols for bird counts in forest surveys to
better ensure the collection of reliable and consistent data.
Obstacles to Assessment Efforts:
* Evasive species make it difficult to track because they travel at
dawn
and dusk.
* Individual nesting places difficult to locate because they are
located
high on a limb in old growth forests.
* Lack of scientific evidence on the extent of north/south migration
and
whether the species migrates across the border.
* Tagged birds may not fly inland to nest.
* Downsizing and reduced funding have decreased amount of research and
increased the difficulty of obtaining implementation funding and
attracting expertise.
Woodland Caribou:
Figure 4: Woodland Caribou‘s Transboundary Range:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Status Listing:
United States; Endangered.
Government of Canada; Threatened[A].
Province of Alberta; Threatened[B].
Province of British Columbia; Threatened.
[End of table]
[A] The government of Canada classifies the Southern Mountain
population as ’threatened“ and the Northern Mountain National
Ecological Area population as ’special concern.“ The Southern Mountain
National Ecological Area population includes the herd that is
transboundary.
[B] Alberta does not share transboundary populations with the United
States. The province‘s populations of concern are shared with British
Columbia.
Threats to the Species:
* Predation by cougars, potential threats by bears.
* Winter recreation--snowmobiles and helicopter skiing.
* Habitat degradation--cumulative effects of historical timber harvests
and fire, logging on state and private lands, increased recreational
access provided by forest road construction.
* Habitat fragmentation--roads and highways/timber harvests/wildfires.
* Poaching/accidental killings.
* Weather conditions potentially reduce food sources.
Data Collected and Used to Monitor Species Population:
* Population census and population trends--data from radio collars and
aerial sightings.
* Mortality factors--data from radio collars, law enforcement data on
poaching, vehicle fatalities, specimens found dead.
Efforts to Manage Species:
* Recovery and protection activities--predator management through white
tail deer and cougar harvests, guidelines for protecting and managing
caribou habitat to be considered in land use planning, hunting of
caribou herds prohibited and hunting seasons for other species may be
closed in caribou habitat to prevent accidental shootings, establishing
park and wildlife management recovery areas in caribou habitat recovery
areas, voluntary road closures to limit access to back country
recreation and legislative closures implemented where necessary,
restrictions on commercial recreation enterprises; reward systems for
reporting poachers; and community outreach and hunter education
programs.
* Coordination activities--Joint U.S./Canadian representation on the
International Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, which meets semiannually
and develops and implements recovery actions for the transboundary
population; joint U.S./Canadian participation on the International
Mountain Caribou Technical Committee which was established as an
international multiagency group of researchers, biologists, resource
managers, industry representatives, and other concerned parties
interested in recovering transboundary and South Purcell populations;
the sharing of technical information as needed and at semiannual
meetings and the sharing of enforcement information; the undertaking of
joint recreation management planning and strategies; states conduct
aerial monitoring using Endangered Species Act funding and share
information with the Fish and Wildlife Service and British Columbia;
the exchanging of U.S. Forest Service land to protect caribou habitat;
joint predator/prey research and management practices; and transplant
efforts by Canada to supplement the U.S. caribou population.
Obstacles to Assessment Efforts:
* Weather conditions affect ability to conduct population census by
aerial monitoring.
* Differing public opinions on forest management and uses versus
protection of the species.
* Funding.
[End of figure]
Enclosure VI:
Scope and Methodology:
The United States/Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expired in March
2001. As part of the preparation process for renegotiating the
agreement, the U.S. Trade Representative requested public comment on
softwood lumber trade issues between the United States and Canada and
on Canadian softwood lumbering practices. The comments received
included allegations that Canadian lumbering and forestry practices
were affecting animal species with U.S./Canadian ranges that are listed
as threatened or endangered in the United States. To consider these
comments as well as to provide the U.S. Trade Representative with
useful information in the renegotiations, the Department of the
Interior, with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‘s assistance, prepared a
conservation status report on selected species that may be affected by
the new agreement. The status report presented summaries of information
on eight transboundary species and reached preliminary conclusions of
potential impact on four species.
We reviewed the information and the process that Interior used to
develop the January 2001 report, and to provide updated information
concerning several specific transboundary species. Specifically, we
describe (1) the supporting information that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service used, and the process it followed when compiling its
information for the Department of the Interior‘s January 2001
conservation status report on selected threatened or endangered species
with U.S./Canada ranges; and (2) existing U.S. and Canadian efforts
aimed at protecting, monitoring, and facilitating the eventual recovery
of four transboundary species--the bull trout, grizzly bear, marbled
murrelet, and woodland caribou--listed as threatened or endangered in
the United States.
Department of the Interior‘s January 2001 Report for the U.S. Trade
Representative:
To determine what information FWS used when assisting the Department of
the Interior to prepare the January 2001 report, we spoke with the FWS
official who compiled FWS‘ input for the report and reviewed recovery
plans, Federal Register species listings, and species background
materials. We traced the content of the January report for the four
species back to the respective recovery plans or listing documents and
discussed the other sources of information not readily identified in
the recovery plans or listing documents with the FWS official. To
determine whether the content of the January 2001 report generally
reflected the current status of the four species, we reviewed the
report with the four species recovery coordinators and discussed
whether more recent information should have been included.
To determine whether the January 2001 report considered information
external to FWS, we reviewed the public comments received by the U.S.
Trade Representative relative to the U.S./Canada Softwood Lumber Trade
Agreement and discussed whether the FWS official considered these
comments in compiling the report. In addition, we contacted
representatives from environmental organizations and industry
associations to determine whether they were aware of studies that
existed when the FWS compiled the January 2001 report that assessed the
impacts of Canadian lumber practices on the U.S. populations of the
four transboundary species. The organizations provided us with some
known studies, which we discussed with the FWS official. We discussed
with the FWS official whether the information contained in these
studies had been considered when compiling the January 2001 report or
if the consideration of this information would have changed the
report‘s content or focus.
To determine the process that FWS and Interior followed when compiling
the January 2001 conservation status report, we met with the Interior
and FWS officials involved in preparing the report, obtained documents
relating to the development of the report, and developed a timeline of
the tasks and activities involved in producing the report for the U.S.
Trade Representative.
U.S./Canadian Efforts to Protect, Monitor, and Recover Four
Transboundary Species:
To determine the U.S. efforts to protect, monitor, and recover the four
transboundary species, we met with FWS regional officials and recovery
coordinators responsible for the bull trout, grizzly bear, marbled
murrelet, and woodland caribou. To determine the Canadian efforts, we
met with federal and provincial fish and wildlife officials in Alberta
and British Columbia involved with the four species. Specifically, we
met with representatives of the federal Canadian Wildlife Service and
Parks Canada; Alberta provincial representatives of the Fish and
Wildlife Division, Sustainable Resource Development; and British
Columbia provincial representatives of the (1) Biodiversity Branch,
Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection; (2) Ministry of Forests;
and (3) Conservation Data Centre.
From both the U.S. and Canadian officials, we obtained information on
the pertinent laws, agreements, and processes affecting their programs
undertaken to protect and recover the various species. In addition, we
obtained general background on the respective species and obtained
evaluative and monitoring data. Specifically, for each species, we
determined the:
* transboundary range of the U.S./Canadian populations,
* special designation afforded the species,
* threats to the species,
* types of data collected and used to establish and monitor baseline
population data and trends,
* types of programs or activities undertaken to protect and recover the
species,
* coordination activities between the United States and Canada, and:
* obstacles faced by the governmental units in assessing and monitoring
the species.
Data Limitations:
While the above information reflects a broad perspective of U.S. and
Canadian fish and wildlife operations, we did not undertake a detailed
assessment of program implementation on either side of the border.
In addition, in the species-specific information in enclosure V, we
included maps to provide the reader with a general geographical
reference for the transboundary ranges that these species currently
inhabit. The maps are intended only to provide the reader with a
general reference to the locations we are discussing. The historic
ranges are not included nor are the maps fully drawn to scale.
Finally, we included the marbled murrlet in our assessment despite the
fact that scientific evidence is unavailable to support that the
species is truly transmigratory. As such, the map for the marbled
murrelet depicts its entire range rather than a transboundary range as
was done with the other species.
[End of section]
