Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Has Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7 Consultations Gao ID: GAO-09-550 May 21, 2009The western United States, including vast stretches of federal land, is home to more than a third of the 1,317 species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Under section 7 of the act, federal agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out, whether on federal or private lands, do not jeopardize listed species. To fulfill this responsibility, the agencies often must formally consult with the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), which issues a biological opinion assessing whether an action is likely to "take," or harm, a listed species. The Service may require the agencies to monitor and report on the action's effects on listed species, including take. For listed species subject to formal consultations in 11 western states, GAO was asked to examine the extent to which the Service tracks (1) required monitoring reports and (2) cumulative take. GAO reviewed the act, regulations, and policy and interviewed Service staff in all western states, reviewed 128 consultation files in five offices, and analyzed 23 listed species in detail.
The Service lacks a systematic means of tracking the monitoring reports it requires in biological opinions and does not know the extent of compliance with these requirements. To track monitoring reports, the Service relies on its biologists to keep abreast of biological opinions and follow up on required monitoring reports. At the field offices GAO visited, Service biologists could not account for all required monitoring reports in 40 of 64 consultation files (63 percent) requiring such reports. Service staff said they face a demanding workload, and responding to new consultation requests often takes higher priority than following up on monitoring reports. This reliance on individual biologists leaves the Service with incomplete institutional knowledge of the extent of action agencies' compliance with reporting requirements, as well as with incomplete information on species' responses to the actions under consultation. The Service also lacks a systematic method for tracking cumulative take of most listed species. Out of 497 listed species in the western states, GAO identified 3 species for which the Service has a formal, Web-based database for tracking cumulative take: northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet,and bull trout. GAO identified 7 more species for which Service biologists developed informal means to track cumulative take. While Service staff generally agreed that it is important to track cumulative take of all species, they cautioned that one size does not fit all in terms of tracking take. For some species, Service biologists said, systematically tracking cumulative take has not been critical, either because very few consultations have occurred with little to no take anticipated, or the Service has good information on the species' status through other sources. For other species, however, such as those that are frequently consulted on and wide-ranging, Service biologists believed that having a more systematic take-tracking method was warranted. The lack of systematic means to track cumulative take for some species, and the resulting gap in knowledge of the species' status, exposes the Service to vulnerabilities, including the threat of litigation and unobserved declines in species. The Service has been developing various databases for more systematically tracking cumulative take, though their development largely depends on resources not yet available in the Service's budget.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-550, Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Has Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7 Consultations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-550
entitled 'Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Has Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section
7 Consultations' which was released on May 21, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2009:
Endangered Species Act:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Has Incomplete Information about
Effects on Listed Species from Section 7 Consultations:
GAO-09-550:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-550, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The western United States, including vast stretches of federal land, is
home to more than a third of the 1,317 species listed under the
Endangered Species Act. Under section 7 of the act, federal agencies
must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out,
whether on federal or private lands, do not jeopardize listed species.
To fulfill this responsibility, the agencies often must formally
consult with the Department of the Interior‘s U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), which issues a biological opinion assessing whether
an action is likely to ’take,“ or harm, a listed species. The Service
may require the agencies to monitor and report on the action‘s effects
on listed species, including take.
For listed species subject to formal consultations in 11 western
states, GAO was asked to examine the extent to which the Service tracks
(1) required monitoring reports and (2) cumulative take. GAO reviewed
the act, regulations, and policy and interviewed Service staff in all
western states, reviewed 128 consultation files in five offices, and
analyzed 23 listed species in detail.
What GAO Found:
The Service lacks a systematic means of tracking the monitoring reports
it requires in biological opinions and does not know the extent of
compliance with these requirements. To track monitoring reports, the
Service relies on its biologists to keep abreast of biological opinions
and follow up on required monitoring reports. At the field offices GAO
visited, Service biologists could not account for all required
monitoring reports in 40 of 64 consultation files (63 percent)
requiring such reports. Service staff said they face a demanding
workload, and responding to new consultation requests often takes
higher priority than following up on monitoring reports. This reliance
on individual biologists leaves the Service with incomplete
institutional knowledge of the extent of action agencies‘ compliance
with reporting requirements, as well as with incomplete information on
species‘ responses to the actions under consultation.
The Service also lacks a systematic method for tracking cumulative take
of most listed species. Out of 497 listed species in the western
states, GAO identified 3 species for which the Service has a formal,
Web-based database for tracking cumulative take: northern spotted owl,
marbled murrelet, and bull trout. GAO identified seven more species for
which Service biologists developed informal means to track cumulative
take. While Service staff generally agreed that it is important to
track cumulative take of all species, they cautioned that one size does
not fit all in terms of tracking take. For some species, Service
biologists said, systematically tracking cumulative take has not been
critical, either because very few consultations have occurred with
little to no take anticipated, or the Service has good information on
the species‘ status through other sources. For other species, however,
such as those that are frequently consulted on and wide-ranging,
Service biologists believed that having a more systematic take-tracking
method was warranted. The lack of systematic means to track cumulative
take for some species, and the resulting gap in knowledge of the
species‘ status, exposes the Service to vulnerabilities, including the
threat of litigation and unobserved declines in species. The Service
has been developing various databases for more systematically tracking
cumulative take, though their development largely depends on resources
not yet available in the Service‘s budget.
Figure: Bull Trout:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Listed as threatened, the bull trout lives in the cold streams, creeks,
and rivers of the western United States. The Service is developing a
database to track cumulative take of bull trout throughout its range,
in part in response to litigation.
Source: Copyright, Joseph R. Tomelleri.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Service develop a cost-effective method for
tracking required monitoring reports systematically and continue to
develop existing databases to enable tracking of cumulative take. The
Department of the Interior concurred with GAO‘s findings and
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-550] or key
components. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The Service Lacks Complete Monitoring Information from Formal
Consultations:
The Service Lacks a Systematic Method for Tracking Cumulative Take of
Most Species but Has Plans to Expand Its Capabilities:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Federal Agencies Frequently Consulting with the Service in the
Western States, Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 2: Species with Informal Means of Tracking Cumulative Take:
Table 3: Listed Species Selected for Review:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Listed Species Found in Each of the 11 Western
States, as of May 2009:
Figure 2: Formal Consultation Process:
Figure 3: Consultation Files in Which All, Some, or No Required
Monitoring Reports Were Available:
Abbreviations:
TAILS: Tracking and Integrated Logging System:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 21, 2009:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jay Inslee:
House of Representatives:
Vast stretches of the millions of acres of federally managed lands in
the western United States are home to more than a third of the 1,317
species listed as threatened or endangered under the nation's
Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 1] Under section 7 of the act, federal
agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry
out--such as building highways, harvesting timber, or drilling for oil
and gas--is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species protected under the act. To fulfill this responsibility, the
agencies must, under some circumstances, formally consult with the
Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
when their actions may affect listed species or habitat identified as
critical to the species' survival.[Footnote 2] Formal consultations
generally result in the issuance of biological opinions by the Service.
The biological opinion contains a detailed discussion of the effects of
the action on listed species or critical habitat, and the Service's
opinion on whether the agency action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. The opinion also determines the
amount or extent of anticipated "incidental take"--that is, take (harm)
resulting from but not the purpose of the agency action--in an
incidental take statement.
Biological opinions also often contain provisions directing an agency
to monitor and report on the effects of its action on listed species.
For example, the Service may ask an agency to monitor the number of
bird nests affected during forest thinning or the densities of fish in
a river after levee construction. This monitoring information enables
the Service to assess an action's effect, including take, on listed
species, which the Service can then roll up for a picture of the
cumulative effects that federally authorized actions are having on
listed species. Given the many listed species, the extent of federally
managed lands, and increasing demands on the nation's lands with new
federal spending on infrastructure and energy projects, particularly
across the western United States, the Service's need to assess the
impacts of federally authorized actions on listed species is of growing
importance.
In this context, for the 11 contiguous western states, and listed
species subject to formal consultations, we were asked to report on (1)
the extent to which the Service tracks required monitoring reports and
(2) the extent to which the Service tracks cumulative take.
To determine the extent to which the Service tracks required monitoring
reports and the extent to which the Service tracks the cumulative take
of species, we reviewed the Endangered Species Act and relevant
regulations, Service policy, and litigation. We interviewed Service
managers, biologists, and other staff from headquarters, four regional
offices, and all 18 field offices in the 11 western states (Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming). To assess the Service's tracking of required
monitoring reports, we reviewed 128 randomly selected formal
consultation files out of the 831 formal consultations completed from
fiscal years 2003 through 2006 at 5 field offices: Arcata, California;
Carlsbad, California; Lacey, Washington; Lakewood, Colorado; and
Phoenix, Arizona. In addition to reviewing these files, we also
interviewed Service staff knowledgeable about the formal consultations.
To determine the extent to which the Service tracks the cumulative take
of species, we judgmentally selected a sample of 23 listed species that
occur in the 11 western states. These species included all those
identified by Service staff as having a means for tracking cumulative
take, plus other species, to capture a range of variability of species
characteristics. For each selected species, we reviewed documentation
about the species and relevant consultation-related actions and
interviewed Service staff knowledgeable about both. Additionally, we
reviewed documentation and asked Service staff to explain their efforts
to develop various consultation-related databases.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2008 through May 2009, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I describes our
scope and methodology in greater detail.
Background:
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.[Footnote
3] The act includes provisions for listing species that need
protection, designating habitat deemed critical to a listed species'
survival, developing recovery plans, and protecting listed species
against certain harms caused by federal and nonfederal actions. As of
May 2009, a total of 1,317 species were listed in the United States,
497 in the 11 western states (see figure 1).[Footnote 4]
Figure 1: Number of Listed Species Found in Each of the 11 Western
States, as of May 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the Western United States]
Arizona: 50;
California: 303;
Colorado: 29;
Idaho: 19;
Montana: 13;
Nevada: 32;
New Mexico: 42;
Oregon: 51;
Utah: 40;
Washington: 39;
Wyoming: 10.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Map Resources (map).
Note: The number for each state represents the total number of species
both federally listed and found in the state (some listed species may
be under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service).
Some listed species are found in more than 1 state; therefore, the sum
of numbers on the map exceeds the total number of listed species in the
11 states.
[End of figure]
Once a species is listed, the act requires that the Service designate
critical habitats, geographical areas that are essential for the
conservation of listed species; develop and implement a recovery plan
containing objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result
in a determination that the species be removed from the list; and
review the status of listed species every 5 years.[Footnote 5] The act
also requires landowners who are engaged in nonfederal activities that
are likely to cause the incidental take of a listed animal species to
develop a habitat conservation plan and obtain a permit from the
Service allowing for incidental take.
Section 7 of the act further directs federal agencies to consult with
the Service when an action they authorize, fund, or carry out could
affect listed species.[Footnote 6] Section 7 applies not only to
actions taken on federal lands, but also to other federal actions that
may affect listed species, such as federal permits or licenses to
nonfederal entities to conduct activities on nonfederal lands. Section
7 also applies if nonfederal entities receive federal funding to carry
out actions that may affect listed species. Before authorizing,
funding, or carrying out an action, federal agencies (called action
agencies) must determine whether the action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat.[Footnote 7] If an agency determines a proposed
action may affect a listed species, formal consultation is required
unless the agency finds, with the Service's written concurrence, that
the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the species. To
initiate a formal consultation, an action agency submits to the Service
a written request that includes the action agency's biological
assessment or similar document, which describes the proposed action and
its likely effects on the listed species and its habitat (see figure
2). The consultation usually ends with the issuing of a biological
opinion by the Service, which generally must be done within time frames
specified in the act and in the implementing regulations.[Footnote 8]
Figure 2: Formal Consultation Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration]
1) Action agency determines that a proposed action is likely to
adversely affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat.
2) Action agency requests initiation of formal consultation by
submitting a biological assessment.
3) Information is complete.
If no, proceed to step 4;
If yes, skip to step 6.
4) Service notifies action agency of missing data.
5) Data are received and complete.
Skip to step 7.
6) Consultation clock starts from date of receipt.
7) Service formulates its biological opinion in conjunction with the
action agency.
8) Action agency reviews draft biological opinion.
9) Service issues final biological opinion, ending formal consultation.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
The Service's biological opinion--which is to be based on "the best
scientific and commercial data available"--constitutes the Service's
determination of whether the effects of an action, when viewed against
the status of the species, are likely to jeopardize the species'
continued existence.[Footnote 9] In its biological opinion, the Service
evaluates a species' current status; analyzes the species'
"environmental baseline" (essentially a snapshot of a species' status
in the action area at a specified moment in time);[Footnote 10] and the
effects of the action on the species, including the amount or extent of
incidental take that Service biologists anticipate will result from the
action. "Take" is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, hunt, capture, or collect or to attempt any such conduct.
Without an appropriate exemption, the act prohibits the taking of
animal species listed under the act.[Footnote 11] Through an
"incidental take statement" in the biological opinion, the Service
determines the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take; the
Service construes the term "take" broadly to mean harm to a species or
its habitat.[Footnote 12] In the statement, take is generally expressed
as the number of individuals of a species likely to be harmed or
killed, or the extent of habitat likely to be destroyed or disturbed.
[Footnote 13] In addition, the statement also specifies "reasonable and
prudent measures," that is, protective measures intended to minimize
the impact to the species of any take that will occur.[Footnote 14] For
example, an action may be restricted to a time of year when the species
is not present; buffer zones might be required around known nesting
areas so as to leave those areas undisturbed; or species might have to
be trapped and moved elsewhere before an action can proceed.
Biological opinions also contain provisions for the action agency to
monitor the actions' effects on listed species and to reenter into, or
reinitiate, consultation if the level of anticipated take is exceeded.
[Footnote 15] On the basis of their professional knowledge and
judgment, Service biologists also often include specific provisions for
the action agency to monitor and report on the actions' effects on
listed species. These monitoring reports may contain information on (1)
adverse effects resulting from an approved action, (2) actual take in
comparison with anticipated take levels documented in biological
opinions, (3) whether the anticipated take level has been exceeded, and
(4) the effectiveness of protective measures designed to minimize the
impact of take. These reports allow the Service to verify its
assessment of an action's effects or to assess the effectiveness of
protective measures so as to refine them in future consultations on
similar actions. Required monitoring reports may also provide the
Service with information about the health of a listed species in a
particular area, which, along with various other monitoring and
information sources the Service has available (such as academic
research or monitoring activities carried out through a recovery
program), can improve the Service's knowledge of the species' status.
From the information provided in biological opinions and associated
monitoring reports, the Service can roll up the overall, or cumulative,
take of a species across its range and over time, thereby assessing the
collective effect that federally authorized actions are having on
listed species.
The consultation process allows some actions to take place that may
involve the incidental take of listed species and helps action agencies
avoid adversely affecting listed species. The Service views its
consultation process as a collaboration with action agencies and,
throughout the development of its biological opinions, seeks to assist
action agencies in designing and implementing their actions so as to
minimize the adverse effect on listed species. The majority of formal
consultations in the western states take place with the federal
agencies in table 1.[Footnote 16] In some cases, the Service itself may
be the action agency--for example, if it carries out an action on
Service land, such as a wildlife refuge restoration project. Since the
Service has the same consultation requirements for its actions as any
other federal agency, when those situations arise, the Service conducts
an "intra-Service" consultation.
Table 1: Federal Agencies Frequently Consulting with the Service in the
Western States, Fiscal Year 2008:
Action agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
Action agency description and types of actions consulted on: Supports
navigation of the nation's waterways by maintaining and improving
channels. Also maintains control of dams and operates hydroelectric
facilities. In addition, issues permits under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act for the discharge of dredge or fill material into U.S. waters
and, under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, for the
construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under
any navigable U.S. water;
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 278;
Percentage: 33.
Action agency: U.S. Forest Service;
Action agency description and types of actions consulted on: Manages
more than 140 million acres of national forests in the western states
and manages and issues permits for activities such as timber
harvesting; recreation; livestock grazing; mining; environmental
restoration; and rights-of-way for road construction, ski areas, and
access to private land;
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 93;
Percentage: 11.
Action agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Action agency description and types of actions consulted on: Manages
more than 170 million acres of federal land in the western states and
manages and issues permits for activities such as livestock grazing,
recreation, mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development;
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 90;
Percentage: 11.
Action agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Action agency description and types of actions consulted on: Conducts
intra-Service consultations on actions such as wildlife refuge
operation and maintenance and wetland restoration efforts;
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 57;
Percentage: 7.
Action agency: Federal Highway Administration;
Action agency description and types of actions consulted on: Assists
state departments of transportation in the construction and maintenance
of transportation facilities through federally funded highway projects;
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 38;
Percentage: 5.
Action agency: Bureau of Reclamation;
Action agency description and types of actions consulted on: Delivers
water and hydroelectric power through the hundreds of dams and
reservoirs it has built throughout the western states, which supply
water for irrigation and municipal and industrial use and water for
hydropower, flood control, recreation, water conservation, land
resource management, and fish and wildlife protection;
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 22;
Percentage: 3.
Action agency: Other;
Action agency description and types of actions consulted on: Many other
federal agencies (e.g., Department of Energy, Department of Homeland
Security, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) and actions (e.g., energy transmission projects, border
patrol activities, regulation of environmental contaminants,
hydroelectric power licensing);
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 254;
Percentage: 31.
Action agency: Total;
Number of formal consultations completed and ongoing: 832;
Percentage: 100.
Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data and GAO analysis.
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
The Service Lacks Complete Monitoring Information from Formal
Consultations:
The Service lacks a systematic means of tracking the monitoring reports
it requires in biological opinions for consulted-on species and does
not know the extent of compliance with these requirements. Rather, the
Service relies on its biologists to keep abreast of the pertinent
biological opinions and to follow up on any associated required
monitoring reports. This reliance on individual biologists, rather than
on a systematic process, leaves the Service with incomplete knowledge
of the extent of action agencies' compliance with reporting
requirements, as well as with incomplete information on species'
responses to the actions under consultation.
The extent to which the Service includes monitoring and reporting
requirements in its biological opinions varies considerably. In all
biological opinions, the Service requires that action agencies monitor
the effects of their actions to determine if consultation must be
reinitiated; the extent to which Service biologists include further
provisions for additional monitoring and reporting varies. Service
staff explained that the reporting provisions they include in their
biological opinions are project specific and largely tailored to the
complexity of a given action, including size, scope, length of time,
and potential impact on listed species. Thus, in a biological opinion,
the Service may ask an action agency to submit monitoring reports on a
one-time basis; on a regular, reoccurring basis; or not at all. For
example, after completion of a single action--such as building a bridge
or widening a highway--the Service may require the action agency to
provide a report to document the action's completion and the actual
take. If, on the other hand, multiple actions are involved, a single
action will cover an extended period, or an action's effects are not
yet well understood or could be significant over the long term--such as
multiple vegetation management actions across one forest, continuing
operation of a major dam, or new alternative energy development--the
Service may ask for annual, or even monthly, reports. In contrast, in
some biological opinions, the Service may not require monitoring
reports. In general, Service staff explained, they may not require
monitoring reports in their biological opinions when they expect an
action's effects on a listed species to be minor or when the action is
routine and its effects relatively well understood. Similarly, a few
Service staff said, when they want feedback on the effectiveness of
protective measures specified in a biological opinion, they may require
monitoring reports on those measures. On the other hand, when such
protective measures are standard best practices, monitoring reports on
their effectiveness may not be necessary.
To track required monitoring reports, each of the Service's field
offices relies on its biologists--generally the author of a biological
opinion or another designated biologist--to keep informed of the
monitoring and reporting requirements contained in the biological
opinions for which they are responsible. Field office managers
explained that each biologist is responsible for a certain set of
biological opinions, and as a part of that responsibility, he or she is
also responsible for tracking any associated required monitoring
reports.[Footnote 17] Thus, the extent to which reports are tracked
varies by biologist. At the field offices we visited, Service
biologists could not fully account for required monitoring reports in
40 of the 64 consultation files (63 percent) we reviewed that had
reporting requirements with reports due (see figure 3).[Footnote 18]
Figure 3: Consultation Files in Which All, Some, or No Required
Monitoring Reports Were Available:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
All required reports available: 38% (24);
Some required reports available: 25% (16);
No required reports available: 38% (24).
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. These
data are based on the 64 consultation files we reviewed that contained
reporting requirements with reports due at the five field offices we
visited.
[End of figure]
In some cases, where monitoring reports were not available, action
agencies had failed to comply with their reporting requirements;
Service biologists suggested that such failures to comply were not
uncommon. In some of these cases, Service biologists followed up with
the action agencies to request overdue reports. In other cases,
however, Service biologists could not confirm whether the action agency
had submitted required reports or whether the action had in fact been
completed.
Overall, Service managers and biologists from headquarters, the
regions, and field offices said that tracking monitoring reports is not
a high priority for several reasons. First, they said, they face a
demanding workload, and responding to requests for consultations often
takes a higher priority than following up on monitoring reports,
especially in light of the statutorily defined time frames for issuing
biological opinions. In addition, Service staff said, they put a high
priority on consulting informally, so they can help agencies design
actions that will have little or no effect on listed species. Informal
consultation can avert the need for formal consultation or, when formal
consultation is necessary, help the action agency design projects that
will minimize adverse effects on listed species. Service staff
explained that from a conservation standpoint, they believed the
Service could gain more by spending its limited resources on
collaborating with action agencies up front than by following up on
completed actions. In addition, Service staff at some offices said they
have had high staff turnover, which, combined with a backlog of
consultations, contributed to the failure to diligently track
monitoring reports. When new biologists arrive at the Service, or
successor biologists assume new responsibilities, they may not have
time to go through already-issued biological opinions to see what
reports are due because they must focus their efforts on completing
pending consultations on time. Some Service biologists said that to
deal effectively with demanding workloads and often-competing
priorities, they take a risk-management approach in deciding which
monitoring reports to track, following up on actions they believe are
likely to have greater impacts on listed species than other actions.
Second, Service staff in many offices observed, they may occasionally
use informal means to collect information similar to what a monitoring
report would provide. Some Service biologists said that through routine
telephone and e-mail conversations with action agency officials, for
example, they may learn whether an action, and its effects on listed
species, went as expected or whether protective measures to minimize
the impact of take were effective. Similarly, they may receive
information through regular quarterly or annual meetings with the
action agencies. In a few instances, Service biologists said, they may
visit sites to observe an agency action in progress. Service biologists
pointed out that these means may provide them with more timely
information than monitoring reports because reports are generally
received by the Service after agency actions are completed, whereas
informal communication often happens while the action is going on. Such
informal communication, however, usually takes place only when Service
staff have working relationships with action agency officials. Service
biologists said such relationships can develop when they repeatedly
work with the same officials within an action agency. But the Service
may also work with an action agency only in isolated instances, and in
those situations, informal communications conveying information similar
to what might be included in a monitoring report would be more
unlikely.
Third, some Service staff said they may not give high priority to
tracking monitoring reports because tracking reports is not an agency
performance measure. To measure its performance in the consultation
arena, the Service tracks the number and types of consultations
completed on time by field offices. Several Service staff told us that
as a result, they tend to emphasize completing biological opinions over
tracking monitoring reports, even though following up on monitoring
reports may also be important. Finally, Service managers noted that
tracking monitoring reports may not be a high priority because they do
not believe it is their job to "police" the action agencies but,
rather, to advise them. Once a biological opinion has been issued, they
believe their responsibilities have been fulfilled and that it is the
action agencies' responsibility to comply with all the requirements in
the biological opinion.[Footnote 19]
We found that the Service's reliance on its biologists to track
monitoring reports exposes the agency to vulnerabilities. In
particular, without a systematic means of tracking monitoring reports,
the Service does not know the extent of compliance with its monitoring
report requirements. While the Service's approach may be sufficient
when the responsible biologist has the knowledge and ability to track
all required reports, it may prove insufficient if the responsible
biologist departs and does not leave behind a clear record. In that
event, the Service may lose that biologist's knowledge about what
reporting requirements may be due and when, or the Service may also
lose information the biologist learned from the action agency through e-
mail, phone, or in-person communications if that information is not
clearly documented. We identified several instances where the biologist
who had drafted the biological opinion, or was otherwise most familiar
with the action, had left the Service, and the successor biologist had
limited knowledge about the action or any required monitoring reports.
Additionally, in the absence of monitoring reports, the Service may be
unable to assess the effects agency actions are having on listed
species or whether the level of anticipated take has been exceeded. For
example, in one case, the Service discovered that an action agency had
not submitted required monitoring reports for over 10 years. The
biological opinion, issued in 1992, required annual reports on the
effects of livestock grazing on an endangered plant species in the
action area. In 1994, the Service reminded the action agency of its
reporting requirements. Nevertheless, the action agency failed to
consistently submit the required reports; grazing continued; and by
2007, when the action agency submitted a report, it reported that the
population, which had once numbered more than 1,400, was not found at
all. By not following up more diligently on the annual reports, the
Service lacked critical information that might have helped mitigate or
avert the ultimate loss of the endangered plant population. Moreover,
without such information, the Service could not recommend additional
protective measures for similar actions in the future to ensure that
listed species would not be further harmed.
Conversely, without monitoring reports, the Service may overestimate
the effects of actions on listed species. Several Service staff said
that in the absence of monitoring reports or other information on
actual take resulting from an agency action, they assume that what was
anticipated in the biological opinion in fact occurred. Others pointed
out, however, that when consulting, action agencies may overestimate
the level of activity to be carried out to ensure that all their
possible actions, and any incidental take occurring as a result, are
approved by the Service. It is not uncommon for some of the approved
actions to be carried out only in part. For example, in consulting with
the Service, an action agency estimated it would maintain an average of
65 miles of recreational trails per year. In the first year, however,
the agency completed maintenance on only 33 miles, approximately half
the estimated average authorized in the biological opinion. Thus, if
the Service relied on anticipated take information for this action, it
could have overestimated the action's effect on listed species.
Furthermore, in the absence of monitoring information, the Service may
not know the effectiveness of the protective measures it requires to
minimize the impact of take on listed species, which could result in
requiring measures that are either overly restrictive or insufficiently
protective. For instance, to minimize the impact of take, one
biological opinion required an action agency to dig up and relocate all
burrows of a listed species located within a half-mile radius of the
action area before carrying out its action. At the time, little was
known about the effects of ground disturbance on the species. Through
information gleaned in part from monitoring, the Service learned that a
shorter radius would minimize the impact of take effectively, and as a
result, the Service reduced the radius in subsequent biological
opinions. Had monitoring information not been provided, however, the
Service may have continued to require the more restrictive measure in
its biological opinions. In another instance, the Service required an
action agency to construct fencing around an action area to keep out a
listed species. A Service manager told us, however, that the measure
was probably ineffective because, she believed, the species was able to
climb over the fence. She suggested that monitoring reports would have
demonstrated the ineffectiveness of this measure, which would have then
prompted the Service to remove or alter the fencing requirement and
identify better protective measures in future biological opinions.
The Service Lacks a Systematic Method for Tracking Cumulative Take of
Most Species but Has Plans to Expand Its Capabilities:
As with monitoring reports, the Service lacks a systematic method of
tracking cumulative take for most species, although it is currently
expanding its efforts by developing various databases.
With Few Exceptions, the Service Has No Systematic Method for Tracking
Cumulative Take of Species:
The Service's assessment of take, for a single consulted-on action and
for multiple actions collectively, provides it with important
information on the impacts that its formal consultations are having on
listed species. The Service commonly measures take by estimating the
number of individuals of species likely to be killed or injured or the
extent (typically in acres) of habitat that will be temporarily or
permanently lost or degraded as a result of an agency action. The
Service's estimate of anticipated take is, in essence, its assessment
of an action's effects on a listed species. By synthesizing take
information from biological opinions, monitoring reports, and other
information, the Service can obtain a picture of the cumulative effects
that consulted-on actions are having on listed species through time and
across the species' range. Tracking cumulative take thus enables the
Service to strengthen its understanding of a species' status and to
factor that knowledge into future consultations.
Service staff cautioned, however, that measuring cumulative take needs
to account for real variability among species, habitats, and actions on
the ground. When synthesizing take information, one cannot simply
assume that anticipated take, as estimated in a biological opinion,
equals actual take after an agency action is completed. Service staff
explained that if they assume that all anticipated take actually
occurs--as some have said they do in the absence of monitoring reports
or other information to provide a more accurate picture--then they may
in fact be overestimating the actions' cumulative effects on listed
species. It is not uncommon, for example, that some approved actions
are postponed indefinitely or even canceled. Over a 5-year period in
one forest, for example, the Service issued biological opinions for
four timber sales, two of which were later canceled. If the Service had
assumed that all four timber sales had taken place, it would have
overestimated the cumulative effects on the listed species inhabiting
that forest. Similarly, Service staff said that when rolling up
cumulative take, it is important not to double-count the effects of
temporary actions in the same action area. In addition, Service staff
explained, a species' characteristics--such as life span, reproductive
rate, and population fluctuations--and the interaction of the species
with its habitat can affect the degree to which take can be
meaningfully synthesized. For example, for plants or other species that
do not move from a particular area, estimated numbers of individuals of
species that will be killed or injured or the number of habitat acres
lost serve as a reasonable measure for take, and these numbers can
easily be added up to give a cumulative total over time and across
geographic areas. In contrast, the populations of many listed fish
species fluctuate widely and often, and their reproductive rates are
high, so information on the numbers of individuals of a species killed
or injured may not necessarily be meaningful to add over time. For such
fish species, an often-used measure for take is number of stream miles
affected by an action. But in any given stream, the effects on the fish
and their habitat may be temporary, or long-term effects may be poorly
understood. Moreover, the effects on the same listed species inhabiting
one stream may not be directly comparable with effects on that same
species in a different stream. Consequently, simply adding affected
stream miles across the two streams may not be a meaningful synthesis
of take for the species. With such factors in play, Service staff
explained, it may be difficult to identify take measures that can be
reasonably summed over time.
To date, partly because of a demanding workload and competing
priorities, the Service has not developed a systematic method for
tracking cumulative take of most listed species. Although Service
managers at headquarters, the regions, and field offices generally
expect their biologists to track cumulative take for all listed
species, they do not dictate how to do so, and the method used
therefore varies. For most species, it is up to individual Service
biologists to maintain and track take information. We found that out of
the 497 species listed in the western states, a formal system for
tracking cumulative take exists for only 3 species. These are Web-based
databases that allow all Service biologists consulting on the species,
from multiple Service offices, to enter anticipated take information
from each biological opinion. This information can then be rolled up
for a total estimate of anticipated take. The three formal take-
tracking systems include the following:
* First, in 2002, the Service developed a take-tracking database (the
Northwest Forest Plan and Section 7 Consultation Effects Tracker) for
the entire range of the threatened northern spotted owl, a small brown
owl that inhabits old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest.
According to Service staff, the database was developed in response to
litigation, which challenged, in part, how the Service developed
environmental baseline information in various biological
opinions.[Footnote 20] The database was designed to track the effects
of actions occurring on federal land--largely actions occurring in
federally managed forests--on the owl and its habitat. Service
biologists enter anticipated take information--measured in various
forms, including acres of nesting or foraging habitat permanently
removed or degraded--from each biological opinion into the database.
Biologists can also enter actual take information once an action is
completed, if that information is available. With the take information
entered, the database can generate reports of cumulative take for the
owl across its range or for smaller geographic units.
* Second, within the database developed for the northern spotted owl,
the Service developed the capability to also track cumulative take for
the marbled murrelet (see sidebar). Service biologists explained that
it was possible to develop a module for the murrelet within the owl
database because the murrelet and owl share similar nesting habitats,
and the Service measures take in a similar manner for the two species.
Anticipated take information is entered identically for both species,
and, as for the owl, actual take information can be updated when it is
available. The cumulative take reports that can be generated for the
murrelet are not as detailed as they are for the owl, however, and do
not include the southernmost portion of the murrelet's range.
[Sidebar: Figure: Photograph of a Marbled Murrelet:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
Listed in 1992 as threatened, the marbled murrelet is an elusive small
seabird that winters and feeds in nearshore marine waters from central
California to Alaska. It took a century, and a $100 reward, before the
species‘ nesting habitat was discovered”high atop trees of coastal
old-growth forests. Parent murrelets take turns feeding their single
chick for a month or more. Then, weighing just over 5 ounces, the
young bird flies from its nest at dusk”straight to the ocean, it is
thought”and is on its own. Like other members of the alcid family”whose
pedigree includes the extinct flightless great auk, or ’penguin“ of the
Northern Hemisphere”murrelets feed on small fish and crustaceans by ’
flying“ underwater, sometimes to a depth of 164 feet. The species is
threatened by habitat loss due to logging and coastal development, as
well as by fishing practices, oil spills, and threats to its prey.
[End of sidebar]
* Third, in 2004, the Service began developing a take-tracking system
for the full range of the bull trout, a threatened fish that inhabits
cold streams, creeks, and rivers of the western states. According to
Service staff, the development of this Consulted-on Effects Database
was also prompted by litigation.[Footnote 21] The database, in its
final stages of development, was designed to capture all the
anticipated effects on the species resulting from formal consultation
actions to enable updating of the species' status throughout its range
and the species' environmental baseline within a specific action area.
Service biologists will enter anticipated take information, measured as
the number of fish killed or injured or the number of stream miles
affected, among other measures, from each biological opinion into the
database. Unlike the northern spotted owl database, the database for
the bull trout will not include the capability for Service biologists
to update anticipated take with actual take after an action is
completed.
In addition, we identified seven other species for which Service
biologists developed their own informal means of tracking cumulative
take. In most cases, a Service biologist enters anticipated take
information from biological opinions as they are completed into an
electronic spreadsheet (see table 2). Take information is generally
entered for some or all of the species' range and may or may not
include relevant consultations completed by all field offices. Only in
rare instances do biologists enter actual take information, instead
relying on anticipated take information from the biological opinion.
For example, for the threatened Mexican spotted owl, whose range
extends from southern Utah and Colorado south into Mexico, a Service
biologist maintains several electronic spreadsheets to track cumulative
take across the four states the owl inhabits. The Service biologist
asks all other biologists consulting on the owl to send her the
biological opinions they complete so that she can enter the anticipated
take information into the spreadsheets. Additionally, in instances
where actual take information becomes available--which, according to
the Service biologist, is not very often--the biologist adds that
information to the spreadsheets as well.
Table 2: Species with Informal Means of Tracking Cumulative Take:
Species: Canada lynx;
Listing status: Threatened;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming;
Means of tracking cumulative take: Electronic spreadsheet maintained by
a Service biologist based in a Colorado field office. Spreadsheet
covers biological opinions issued in Colorado for consultations on
multiple agencies' actions affecting the lynx; it does not include lynx
consultations in states besides Colorado. Spreadsheet tracks
anticipated take as the number of lynx harassed or killed or the number
of habitat acres modified. Anticipated take is tracked by the county
where it is expected to occur.
Species: Desert tortoise;
Listing status: Threatened;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, California, Nevada,
Utah;
Means of tracking cumulative take: Electronic spreadsheet maintained by
a Service biologist based in a Nevada field office. Spreadsheet covers
biological opinions issued in Nevada for consultations on multiple
agencies' actions affecting the tortoise; it does not include tortoise
consultations in states besides Nevada. Spreadsheet tracks anticipated
take as number of tortoises harassed, injured, or killed and number of
acres of critical habitat and noncritical habitat modified. Anticipated
take is tracked by county and recovery unit. Office is also developing
an online database for recovery and consultation information, including
a module for tracking cumulative take.
Species: Mexican spotted owl;
Listing status: Threatened;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah;
Means of tracking cumulative take: Electronic spreadsheets maintained
by a Service biologist based in an Arizona field office. Spreadsheets
cover biological opinions issued by field offices in Arizona, New
Mexico, Utah, and Colorado for consultations on multiple agencies'
actions affecting the owl. Spreadsheets track anticipated take as
number of owls harassed and number of habitat acres modified.
Anticipated take tracked by recovery unit. Actual take entered when
available.
Species: Pecos bluntnose shiner (a fish);
Listing status: Threatened;
Species' range in the western states[A]: New Mexico (Pecos River only);
Means of tracking cumulative take: Electronic spreadsheet maintained by
a Service biologist in a New Mexico field office. Spreadsheet covers a
biological opinion issued by that office for one action agency's
multiple actions over a 10-year period. Spreadsheet tracks the fishes'
population density, as recorded through monthly sampling.
Species: Pima pineapple cactus;
Listing status: Endangered;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona;
Means of tracking cumulative take: Electronic spreadsheet maintained by
Service biologists based in an Arizona field office. Spreadsheet covers
biological opinions issued in Arizona for consultations on multiple
agencies' actions affecting the cactus. Spreadsheet tracks anticipated
take as number of cactuses affected and number of habitat acres
modified. Spreadsheet also tracks conservation mitigation acres
purchased to offset the removal of habitat as a result of consulted-on
actions.
Species: Preble's meadow jumping mouse;
Listing status:
Threatened;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Colorado;
Means of tracking cumulative take: Electronic spreadsheet maintained by
Service biologists based in a Colorado field office. Spreadsheet covers
biological opinions issued in Colorado for consultations on multiple
agencies' actions affecting the mouse. Spreadsheet tracks anticipated
take as number of mice affected and number of habitat acres temporarily
or permanently modified. Anticipated take tracked by county or
watershed.
Species: Southwestern willow flycatcher;
Listing status: Endangered;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah;
Means of tracking cumulative take: Electronic spreadsheet maintained by
a Service biologist based in an Arizona field office. Spreadsheet
covers biological opinions issued by field offices in all states where
the listed bird occurs for consultations on multiple agencies' actions
affecting the flycatcher. Spreadsheet tracks anticipated take as number
of habitat acres degraded or eliminated and number of birds harassed or
harmed. Anticipated take tracked by state, county, and management unit.
Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data and GAO analysis.
[A] This range represents the states where the species is both listed
and found within the 11 western states included in our review; a
species may also occur in states besides those listed in the table.
[End of table]
While most Service staff at headquarters, the regions, and field
offices agreed that it is important to track cumulative take for all
species, they cautioned that one size does not fit all in terms of
tracking take. In their view, the degree of effort necessary depends on
such factors as how often a species is consulted on and by how many
offices, how wide-ranging the species is, and how much other scientific
information is available. For some species, Service biologists said
that systematically tracking cumulative take has not been critical,
either because very few consultations have occurred, with little to no
take anticipated, or the Service has good information on the species'
status from other sources, such as population surveys. For several of
the species we reviewed, the Service has issued very few biological
opinions, largely because the species occurs on private land. For
example, for the endangered Point Arena mountain beaver, which inhabits
a 24-square-mile area of mostly private land in northern California,
three biological opinions were issued over the last 5 years. Two of the
opinions permitted recovery work to benefit the mountain beaver, and
the third did not anticipate any take. As a result, Service biologists
said that, to date, there has been no need to systematically track
cumulative take of the mountain beaver. For other species we reviewed,
Service biologists said they maintain detailed information on the
species' status, which is used to develop biological opinions. For
example, population surveys of the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog
(see sidebar) provide the Service with information that is used to
develop biological opinions. In addition, although the frog has been
affected by numerous consulted-on actions over the past several years,
many of the actions have affected the frog only temporarily (such as
prescribed burns) or have actually benefited the species (such as
grazing, when carried out within certain parameters). According to a
Service biologist, very little permanent habitat loss has resulted to
date from consulted-on actions. Consequently, as for the mountain
beaver, the biologist said, no critical need has arisen as yet for
systematically tracking cumulative take for the frog.
[Sidebar: Figure: Photograph of Chiricahua Leopard Frog:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
Listed in 2002 as threatened, the large, green, stocky Chiricahua
leopard frog lives in springs, marshes, pools, and even cattle tanks of
the U.S. Southwest. Its call has been described as a ’long snore“
lasting a second or two. Once denizens of a wide variety of aquatic
habitats, the frogs are now restricted by the presence of the even
larger nonnative American bullfrog”which prey on their smaller
relatives”to water that may be unpredictable and temporary. In keeping
with a pattern of global decline among amphibians, Chiricahua leopard
frogs face threats including fungal disease, drought, floods, human
activities, and habitat loss. Yet much of the species‘ life history and
ecology remains poorly known.
[End of sidebar]
In contrast, many Service biologists believed that having a more
systematic method for tracking cumulative take would help them better
manage other species. We identified several species where the Service
did not have a method for tracking cumulative take, but because of how
often the species was consulted on, the species' wide-ranging nature,
or the general lack of good information on the species' status, Service
biologists believed that taking a more systematic approach would be
warranted. For example, for the threatened coastal California
gnatcatcher, one of the most frequently consulted-on species in
southern California (see sidebar), urban development pressures have
been high, often resulting in the permanent loss of the coastal sage-
scrub habitat the bird depends on. Service biologists said they rely on
their firsthand knowledge of the biological opinions issued out of
their office to give them a sense of the cumulative effects of
consulted-on actions. For the gnatcatcher, the biologists said they
recognize the need for a more formal method for tracking cumulative
take, in part because information about the species' status is thin,
but a demanding workload and limited resources have precluded them from
developing a more formal method.
[Sidebar: Figure: Photograph of Coastal California Gnatcatcher:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
Listed in 1993 as threatened, the tiny, blue-gray coastal California
gnatcatcher has been the centerpiece of a novel land-use program called
Natural Community Conservation Planning. By focusing on tracts of
potential habitat instead of individual species, the program encourages
collaboration over conflict between developers and conservationists.
Fewer than 5,000 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers now reside on
some of Southern California‘s most expensive real estate”the coastal
sagebrush-dominated scrub between Los Angeles and San Diego, which
continues to experience loss and fragmentation. Moving quickly through
branches of shrubs, the birds often glean relatively immobile prey such
as spiders, beetles, and leaf-sucking insects and may rear three
successful broods in a single year; young birds rarely disperse farther
than 6 miles from where they were hatched.
[End of sidebar]
Similarly, for the endangered tidewater goby--a small fish that
inhabits coastal brackish-water habitats, such as estuaries and
lagoons, in California--consultations have been frequent, including on
water-related activities such as culvert replacements, modifications to
levees, and water diversions for agricultural use. A Service biologist
said that although the Service has no systematic method for tracking
cumulative take of the species, he believes developing such a method
would be both feasible and useful. He suggested it would be
particularly useful for the goby because much about the species'
biology and its status is uncertain. The biologist further noted that
coordination was lacking across the several field offices consulting on
the goby and that a more systematic process for tracking cumulative
take would enhance the offices' degree of coordination, as well as
their overall knowledge of the species and the cumulative effects of
consulted-on actions.
We found that in the absence of a systematic method for tracking
cumulative take, the Service is exposing itself to vulnerabilities,
including the threat of litigation and the danger that it may have an
inaccurate picture of the collective effects consulted-on actions have
had on species. As previously mentioned, the Service developed two take-
tracking databases (for the northern spotted owl and the bull trout)
after litigants challenged how the Service calculated the environmental
baseline and cumulative effects for biological opinions related to
those species; the Service has also been sued over similar issues
concerning other species over the past several years.[Footnote 22]
Additionally, Service staff expressed concern that without cumulative
take information for some species, they may not have a complete
understanding of the past effects that consulted-on actions have had on
the species. As when monitoring reports are missing, staff turnover can
mean the institutional loss of knowledge about the effects on species
from past consultations, and this lack of information could in turn
result in a miscalculation of the environmental baseline for future
consultations and an insufficient analysis of the total effects on the
species in the action area. Service staff said that although the effect
of any single consulted-on action may be small, over time the effects
of multiple actions may accumulate, and to accurately conduct its
consultation analyses, the Service needs to be aware of this
accumulation. If the Service is unaware of the cumulative effects on a
species of consulted-on actions, over time it could miss important
declining trends in the species' status.
Development of New Electronic Databases Shows Promise:
As a part of its larger efforts to bring different database
applications on line--intended, among other things, to improve the
consultation process--the Service has been developing various databases
for more systematically tracking cumulative take. The development of
take-tracking databases for widespread use is in early stages, however,
and depends on resources not yet available in the Service's budget. For
instance, the Service is currently developing a new take-tracking
database--the Consulted-on Effects Database, the same database being
developed for the bull trout--for the northern spotted owl and marbled
murrelet. A Service biologist familiar with this database said that it
is especially suited to wide-ranging species, and because the bulk of
the database programming has already been done for the bull trout, owl,
and murrelet, it could easily be adapted for other aquatic and
terrestrial species. Further, the database is able to capture take in
various ways, making it potentially useful for species for which
measuring take is not simple. The development of this database for
species other than the bull trout, northern spotted owl, and marbled
murrelet has not formally begun, however, and would depend on resources
not currently available in the Service's budget.
The Service is also exploring efforts to include capabilities for
tracking cumulative take in its online database called Tracking and
Integrated Logging System (TAILS). The system tracks information about
consultation-related activities, including dates that certain
activities are completed, action agency or agencies involved, and
affected listed species. Service staff explained that as they were
developing TAILS over the past several years, they recognized the need
for also tracking cumulative take but quickly realized that such a
component would be complex to build, especially if it were to be
customized for different species. So in rolling out TAILS for
nationwide use, the Service included an optional field for Service
biologists to enter narrative about anticipated take from the pertinent
biological opinion. TAILS cannot synthesize such information, although
staff could do so by hand with information that had been entered. The
Service is continuing to make improvements to the TAILS database,
however, including an analysis of how to capture take and then
synthesize it by geographic area. Like expanding the Consulted-on
Effects Database, however, further development of cumulative take-
tracking components in TAILS is likely to depend on future funding.
Conclusions:
Given the potential harm to threatened and endangered species from many
federally authorized actions, especially in the western states, the
Service plays a key role in consulting with action agencies to ensure
adequate protection of imperiled species. As it stands now, the Service
lacks systematic means of tracking monitoring reports or cumulative
take resulting from consulted-on actions, relying instead almost
exclusively on its individual biologists to maintain crucial species
information. This approach exposes the Service to vulnerabilities: for
certain species, for example, the retirement or loss of just one
biologist could deprive the Service of fundamental institutional
knowledge, thereby crippling the Service's ability to effectively
manage these species.
Monitoring reports can play a critical role in the consultation process
because they provide an evaluation of and a feedback loop on the
effects actions have on listed species and the effectiveness of
protective measures taken to minimize the impact of take. Without the
information contained in monitoring reports, Service staff would be
unable to confirm the actual effects of actions on listed species or to
determine whether the protective measures were effective and,
therefore, whether the measures required in subsequent biological
opinions should be modified. In contrast, better tracking of monitoring
reports could bring a triple benefit: (1) a more accurate picture than
the Service now has of the extent of compliance with reporting
requirements in its biological opinions; (2) a clearer picture of what
types of reporting requirements best elicit compliance; and, most
important, (3) the actual information about effects of particular
actions on species, including the effectiveness of required protective
measures. While we agree that the Service cannot force action agencies
to comply with reporting requirements, knowing the level of compliance
and what works and what does not would be useful information to have
for future consultations, both to maximize protective benefits to
species and to minimize requirements for action agencies.
Without cumulative take information, the Service may not be able to
effectively evaluate the collective impacts of federally authorized
actions over time, across multiple offices, and across species' ranges.
Although one action may not unduly harm a listed species, cumulative
effects over time and across landscapes could lead to a species' demise
without the Service's knowledge or ability to respond. And although it
is important to develop a systematic method for tracking take of all
species subject to formal consultations, cumulative take information
would be most beneficial for certain wide-ranging and frequently
consulted-on species, and thus, development of a take-tracking system
for these types of species could be the highest priority. Setting
priorities, taking such a strategic approach, would expand the
Service's capabilities of tracking take in a way that would maximize
the benefit received from the resources invested. Because the
vulnerabilities or risks are lower for not having a systematic method
for tracking take of species that are not consulted on frequently or
are handled by one biologist or office, such species could be a lower
priority. Nevertheless, developing a systematic and cost-effective
method for tracking take of these species is important for maintaining
institutional knowledge and ensuring continuity of operations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To increase the Service's institutional knowledge and understanding of
the effects on species of actions subject to formal consultations under
the Endangered Species Act, we recommend that the Secretary of the
Interior direct the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
take the following two actions:
* develop a simple and cost-effective method for systematically
tracking all required monitoring reports, such as adding an additional
field to the existing TAILS database; and:
* continue to develop existing databases, in as strategic and
expeditious a manner as possible, to enable systematic tracking of
cumulative take for all species affected by formal consultations.
Agency Comments:
We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report
for review and comment. The Department of the Interior concurred with
our findings and recommendations. Appendix II contains the department's
comment letter.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior,
the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address the extent to which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) tracks monitoring reports that may be required under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act, as well as the cumulative take of
species resulting from consulted-on actions, we reviewed the Endangered
Species Act and relevant regulations, Service policy, and litigation.
We also interviewed Service managers from headquarters and the four
regional offices (Region 1, Region 2, Region 6, and Region 8) that
oversee the Ecological Services Field Offices located in the 11
contiguous western United States to document and obtain their
perspectives on and expectations for tracking monitoring reports and
cumulative take of species.[Footnote 23] Additionally, we conducted
structured telephone interviews with Service staff from all 18 field
offices in the 11 states: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Arcata, California;
Boise, Idaho; Carlsbad, California; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Helena, Montana;
Klamath Falls, Oregon; Lacey, Washington; Lakewood, Colorado; Phoenix,
Arizona; Portland, Oregon; Red Bluff, California; Reno, Nevada;
Sacramento, California; Spokane, Washington; Ventura, California; West
Valley City, Utah; and Yreka, California.
To carry out our structured telephone interviews with field office
staff, we developed a set of structured interview questions with the
assistance of a GAO survey specialist. Our open-ended interview
questions covered a range of topics, including field office processes
for tracking and using required monitoring reports, the priority for
ensuring that monitoring reports are being received, field office
processes for tracking anticipated and actual cumulative take for
species subject to consultations, and the Service's means of
determining the cumulative impact on listed species from consulted-on
actions. We pretested our structured interview questions over the
telephone from October 3 to October 21, 2008, with field office staff
from four field offices. Our pretest participants were judgmentally
selected to represent a range of office sizes and locations. We revised
the structured interview questions, as appropriate, on the basis of the
pretest results. We conducted our structured telephone interviews from
October 27 through December 1, 2008, with Service field office
managers, biologists, and other staff identified as knowledgeable about
consultations.
To determine the extent to which the Service tracks required monitoring
reports, we reviewed a random sample of consultation files from five
field offices that we visited: Arcata, California; Carlsbad,
California; Lacey, Washington; Lakewood, Colorado; and Phoenix,
Arizona. We selected these offices on the basis of Service
jurisdictional region, geographic location, staff size, and
consultation workload. To determine consultation workload, we used 2008
data on the number of completed formal consultations from the Service's
Tracking and Integrated Logging System (TAILS). We spoke to various
Service staff to learn how data were entered into this system and by
whom and how confident Service staff were with the data's completeness
and accuracy. At each of the five field offices, we obtained a list of
all biological opinions completed from fiscal years 2003 through 2006.
We then randomly selected 128 biological opinions out of the 831
completed at these offices during this time frame--at least 20 from
each field office--to review. We determined that the data the Service
provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our review. We
reviewed the information available in the file for each selected
biological opinion and documented the extent to which required
monitoring reports were present in the consultation files. Of the 128
biological opinion files that we reviewed, 45 files did not contain
reporting requirements,[Footnote 24] and 19 biological opinions were
for actions that had not been carried out or reports were otherwise not
due. When determining the proportion of files containing required
monitoring reports, we therefore based our calculations on the 64 files
on completed actions that contained reporting requirements with reports
due. In instances where required monitoring reports were not contained
in the file, we interviewed Service biologists knowledgeable about the
biological opinion (generally the author of the biological opinion or a
designated species lead if the author was unavailable) to determine if
the monitoring reports might be located elsewhere (e.g., available
electronically).
To determine the extent to which the Service tracks the cumulative take
of species, we judgmentally selected a sample of 23 listed species
occurring in the 11 western states. First, in our sample we included
all species identified by the Service as having a process to track
cumulative take, which totaled 10. For these species, we obtained
supporting documentation and interviewed Service biologists to gain a
better understanding of the way in which take is measured and summed,
the time frame covered, how the data are entered and by whom, and how
the information is used within and across Service field offices.
Second, we selected 13 additional species to capture a range of
variability among species characteristics to determine how biologists
track take and what other information they use to determine the impact
of formal consultations on the species. We based our selection of these
species on scientific classification (taxonomy), species range
(occurring in one state or multiple states), and the Service's recovery
priority for the species (see table 3). For the species selected, we
reviewed relevant documentation and a sample of biological opinions. We
also interviewed Service field staff knowledgeable about the species to
learn how frequently consultations are done for that species, the types
of actions and key action agencies that consult with the Service on
that species, how take is typically measured for the species, how take
is tracked cumulatively, and other information sources staff use to
determine the impacts to species from consulted-on actions.
Table 3: Listed Species Selected for Review:
Species: Behren's silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene behrensii);
Taxonomy: Insect;
Species' range in the western states[A]: California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Bighorn sheep, peninsular California population (Ovis
canadensis);
Taxonomy: Mammal;
Species' range in the western states[A]: California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus);
Taxonomy: Fish;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington;
Recovery priority number[B]: 9c;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis);
Taxonomy: Mammal;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming;
Recovery priority number[B]: 15;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis);
Taxonomy: Amphibian;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, New Mexico;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica);
Taxonomy: Bird;
Species' range in the western states[A]: California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii);
Taxonomy: Reptile;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, California, Nevada,
Utah;
Recovery priority number[B]: 8c;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis);
Taxonomy: Mammal; Species' range in the western states[A]: Idaho,
Montana, Washington;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae);
Taxonomy: Mammal;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, New Mexico;
Recovery priority number[B]: 8;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus);
Taxonomy: Bird;
Species' range in the western states[A]: California, Oregon,
Washington;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida);
Taxonomy: Bird;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah;
Recovery priority number[B]: 9c;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina);
Taxonomy: Bird;
Species' range in the western states[A]: California, Oregon,
Washington;
Recovery priority number[B]: 6c;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis);
Taxonomy: Fish;
Species' range in the western states[A]: New Mexico (Pecos River only);
Recovery priority number[B]: 3;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina);
Taxonomy: Plant;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Point Arena mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa nigra);
Taxonomy: Mammal; Species' range in the western states[A]: California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 9c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei);
Taxonomy: Mammal;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Colorado;
Recovery priority number[B]: 9c;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis);
Taxonomy: Crustacean;
Species' range in the western states[A]: California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 2c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus);
Taxonomy: Bird;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3c;
Take-tracking process: Yes.
Species: Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi [incl. D.
cascus]);
Taxonomy: Mammal;
Species' range in the western states[A]: California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 2c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi);
Taxonomy: Fish; Species' range in the western states[A]: California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 7c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus);
Taxonomy: Plant; Species' range in the western states[A]: Colorado,
Utah;
Recovery priority number[B]: 14c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Western snowy plover, Pacific coastal population (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus);
Taxonomy: Bird; Species' range in the western states[A]: California,
Oregon, Washington;
Recovery priority number[B]: 3c;
Take-tracking process: No.
Species: Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis);
Taxonomy: Bird;
Species' range in the western states[A]: Arizona, California;
Recovery priority number[B]: 6;
Take-tracking process: No.
Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data and GAO analysis.
[A] This range represents the states where the species is both listed
and found within the 11 western states included in our review; a
species may also occur in states besides those listed in the table.
[B] The Service assigns each listed species a recovery priority number,
ranging from 1 to 18, based on the degree of threats, recovery
potential, and taxonomic distinctness. Species with a high priority
rank (e.g., 1, 2, or 3) are those that are the most imperiled and have
the highest potential for recovery. Species with a low rank (e.g., 16,
17, or 18) are the least imperiled and have low recovery potential. A
species' rank may be elevated by adding a "c" designation to its
numerical rank to indicate that it is, or may be, in conflict with
construction or other development projects or other forms of economic
activity.
[End of table]
To learn about the Service's efforts to develop consultation related-
databases, we reviewed relevant documentation about each database and
interviewed Service managers from headquarters and the regions
knowledgeable about the databases. Service staff described their
efforts to develop each database, including time frames and available
funding, and also demonstrated how the systems work.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2008 through May 2009, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office of the Secretary:
Washington, DC 20240:
April 28, 2009:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on U.S. Government Accountability Office Draft
Report "Endangered Species: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7
Consultations." (GAO-09-550).
The Department concurs with the findings and the two recommendations
for executive action.
We hope these comments will assist you in preparing the final report.
If you have any questions. please contact Katherine Garrity at (703)
358-2551.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Will Shafrath:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm,
Assistant Director; Eric Bachhuber; Mark A. Braza; Ellen W. Chu; Justin
Fisher; Richard P. Johnson; Alyssa M. Hundrup; Trish McClure; Laina
Poon; Jena Sinkfield; Kyle Stetler; and Joshua Wiener made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544.
[2] The Department of the Interior, which has responsibilities for
implementing the Endangered Species Act for all terrestrial (land-
dwelling) and freshwater species, as well as for sea turtles when on
land and all birds, including seabirds, has largely delegated these
responsibilities to the Service. The Department of Commerce, which is
responsible for implementing the act for most anadromous (saltwater-
freshwater migrant) fish, such as salmon, and most marine species, has
delegated its responsibilities to the National Marine Fisheries
Service. This report does not address the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[3] An endangered species is any species of animal or plant that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A threatened species is any species of animal or plant that is
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
[4] The National Marine Fisheries Service has jurisdiction for 68 of
the total 1,317 species, and 40 of the 497 species listed in the 11
western states.
[5] See GAO, Endangered Species: Many Factors Affect the Length of Time
to Recover Select Species, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-730] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6,
2006); Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Generally Focuses
Recovery Funding on High-Priority Species but Needs to Periodically
Assess Its Funding Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-211] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6,
2005); and Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife Service Uses Best
Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance
Needed for Critical Habitat Designations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-803] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29,
2003).
[6] The Service issued regulations to interpret and implement section 7
of the act (50 C.F.R. pt. 402) and developed the Endangered Species
Consultation Handbook, outlining procedures for conducting
consultations under section 7 of the act.
[7] Throughout the remainder of this report, the term "listed species"
should be read to mean a listed species and its critical habitat, if
critical habitat has been designated.
[8] The act requires consultations to be completed within 90 days; the
implementing regulations require biological opinions to be delivered
within 45 days after consultation has been completed. 16 U.S.C. §
1536(b)(1)(A) and 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(e), respectively.
[9] If a jeopardy finding is reached, the Service's biological opinion
includes reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency's proposed
action, which enable the action to continue while remaining consistent
with the act's requirements for protecting species. The action agency
may apply to the Secretary of the Interior for an exemption from the
act's consultation provisions if the Service's opinion includes a
jeopardy finding.
[10] To determine the environmental baseline, the Service analyzes the
effects of past and present human and natural factors leading to the
current status of the species, its habitat, and ecosystem within the
action area. The environmental baseline includes the impacts of all
federal, state, or private actions, including the anticipated impacts
of all proposed federal actions in the area that have already undergone
separate consultation with the Service.
[11] The Endangered Species Act contains no general take prohibition
for listed plant species, although plants are protected against certain
forms of destruction. For example, protection for listed plants is
provided to the extent that the act prohibits the removal, reduction,
and possession of federally listed endangered plants; the malicious
damage or destruction of such plants on areas under federal
jurisdiction; and the destruction of endangered plants on nonfederal
areas in violation of state law or regulation or in the course of
violation of a state criminal trespass law. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(2)(B).
[12] Specifically, Service regulations state that "harm" in the
definition of "take" in the Endangered Species Act means an action that
actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an action may include
significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or
injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 C.F.R. §
17.3). The Supreme Court upheld this broad definition of harm in
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515
U.S. 687, 697 (1995).
[13] In its discussion of the incidental take statement provision added
to the act in 1982, a relevant congressional committee report indicated
that the committee preferred the incidental take statement to contain a
numerical value: "[W]here possible, the impact should be specified in
terms of a numerical limitation on the federal agency or permittee or
licensee." The committee recognized, however, that a numerical value
would not always be available: "The Committee recognizes ...it may not
be possible to determine the number of eggs of an endangered or
threatened fish which will be sucked into a power plant when water is
used as a cooling mechanism. The Committee intends only that such
numbers be established where possible." H.R. Rep. No. 97-567 at 27
(1982). In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled that if the Service chooses to employ a nonnumerical
surrogate for take, the chosen surrogate must be able to perform the
functions of a numerical limitation, in particular, establishing a
trigger requiring the parties to reinitiate consultation. Oregon
Natural Resources Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir.
2007).
[14] Reasonable and prudent measures, along with the terms and
conditions that implement them, cannot alter the basic design,
location, scope, duration, or timing of the action and may involve only
minor changes. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(2).
[15] Reinitiation of formal consultation is required in four instances
where discretionary federal involvement or control over the action has
been retained or is authorized by law: (1) if the amount or extent of
taking specified in the biological opinion is exceeded, (2) if new
information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered, (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion, or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
by the identified action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.16.
[16] In 2004, we issued a report evaluating the consultation process in
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington for the Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service.
GAO, Endangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is Needed to
Improve the Consultation Process, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-93] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19,
2004).
[17] Several years ago, at least two field offices employed staff whose
responsibility was to track compliance with biological opinions,
including monitoring and reporting requirements. According to Service
staff, both of these positions were eliminated because of budget
pressures.
[18] We reviewed a total of 128 consultation files at five field
offices; 45 of them did not contain reporting requirements. In 19
consultation files, documentation indicated that the action had not
been carried out or reports were otherwise not due. Thus, in
determining the proportion of files containing required monitoring
reports, we based our calculations on the remaining 64 consultation
files that did contain reporting requirements with reports due.
[19] The act requires "each federal agency...to insure" that its
actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species. 16 U.S.C. §
1536(a)(2) [emphasis added]. While agencies must carry out this
responsibility "in consultation with" the Service, the act imposes this
responsibility directly on the action agency.
[20] A suit was filed in November 2000, challenging six biological
opinions, related to timber harvests in certain national forests in the
Pacific Northwest, that authorized incidental take of the northern
spotted owl. Shortly after the suit was filed, the Service began
developing a take-tracking database. In 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals held, in part, that the Service could not unilaterally amend
a biological opinion to add new baseline information without
reinitiating consultation. Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States
Fish & Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d. 1059, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2004).
[21] The litigation challenged, in part, the Service's analysis of the
cumulative effects of approved projects on the bull trout, contained in
a biological opinion associated with a mining project. The plaintiffs
argued that "if the biological opinions all concluded that bull trout
subpopulations must be preserved but some damage to this particular
subpopulation is acceptable, then it would be death by a thousand
pinpricks." See Rock Creek Alliance v. United States Fish & Wildlife
Service, 390 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (D. Mont. 2005). In 2005, a federal
district court held that the Service's cumulative effects analysis
contained in the mining project biological opinion was invalid because
it failed to adequately consider the cumulative effects of other
approved projects on the species. Id. at 1010. The court noted that the
act's regulations allow the Service to limit its cumulative effects
analysis to the action area for the project being examined, but the
Service's evaluation of the species' current status and its ultimate
jeopardy determination is not limited in geographic scope. Id. Thus,
the Service must examine the current status of the species across its
entire range, along with the effects of the action in the action area,
to make a jeopardy determination. Id.
[22] See, for example, Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp.
2d. 121, 126 (D.D.C. 2001) (biological opinions prepared by the Service
failed to take into account cumulative effects of all federal
activities in action area affecting species); Natural Resources Defense
Council v. Kempthorne, 506 F. Supp. 2d 322, 375-76 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
(failure of biological opinion to include qualitative and quantitative
analysis of cumulative effects of nonfederal actions violated the act);
Heartwood v. Kempthorne, Civ. No. 05-313, 2007 WL 1795296 (S.D. Ohio
2007) (Service's biological opinions properly evaluated the cumulative
effects of several timber harvest projects and potential private
harvest activities on the endangered Indiana bat).
[23] In addition, in identifying and assessing monitoring and reporting
requirements for the action agencies that frequently consult with the
Service, we spoke with officials from the Service, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management and Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of
Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service at their respective headquarters and
a variety of field office locations in six states. At these locations,
we reviewed available biological opinions and monitoring reports, as
well as other relevant documentation, to learn more about their
consultation actions and to gain a greater understanding of the
consultation process specific to monitoring, reporting, and tracking
take of species.
[24] These biological opinions did not contain reporting requirements
beyond standardized language in the incidental take statement stating
that the action agency must notify the Service and reinitiate
consultation if any of the thresholds for reinitiation are reached.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
