1

Analysis Plan for the Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Consultation on t he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Vessels General Permit and Small Vessels General Permit

N ation M arine F isheries S ervice and U nited S tates F ish and W ildlife S ervice ( Services)

2 August 201 2

Overview of the Services’ Assessment Framework Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal Agencies , in consultation with and with the assistance of the Services, to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species, threatened species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for these species (16 U.S.C. 1539). Durin g consultations on specific actions, the Services fulfill their obligations by using an assessment framework that begins by identifying the physical, chemical, or biotic components of proposed actions that are likely to have individual, interactive, or agg regat e direct and indirect effect on the environment (we use the term “potential stressors” for these components of an action); we then determine whether listed species or designated critical habitat are likely to be exposed to those potential stressors;

w e then estimate how listed species or designated critical habitat are likely to respond to any exposure; then we conclude by estimating the risks those responses pose to the individuals, populations, and species or designated critical habitat that are like ly to be exposed.

Federal Agency general permits apply to activities over large geographic areas over long periods of time, with sub

stant ial uncertainty about the number, location, timing, frequency, and intensity of specific activities general permits would authorize, fund, or carry out. Traditional s ection 7 consultations are small

- scale
, proximal and focus on the specific effects of a specific proposal . However, those consultations are not designed to deal with the spatial and temporal scales and le vel of uncertainty that are typical of consultations on general permits

. Instead of trying to adapt traditional consultation approaches to general permit consultations, we have developed an assessment framework that specifically allows us to help Federal Agencies insure that their programs comply with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA as described in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (U SFWS and NMFS 1998). Our assessment framework for general permits first assesses whether the gene ral permits are likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitats by estimating exposure and response, as described above for traditional consultations. If listed species and critical habitats are likely to be adversely affected we then asses s how the permit is structured to comply with section 7(a)(2). Specifically, our general permit consultations examine the decision

- making processes that are integrated into Federal Agency programs to determine whether th ey are likely to insure that specif ic actions the Agency authorizes, funds, or carries out through the general permit comply with the requirements of section 7(a)(2). That is, during general permit consultations we ask whether or to what degree the agency has structured its proposed permit to (1) collect the information necessary to know or reliably estimate the probable individual and aggregate consequences of the action to listed resources ; (2) evaluate the information to assess how its actions have affected listed resources ; and (3) use its authorities to bring those activities into compliance with the require ments of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, if th e information it collectsA NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

2 suggests that it is necessary

. Here, the “structure of permit” or “ permit structure” refers to the decision

- maki ng processes, applications of standards and criteria (including standards of information and treatment of uncertainty), feedback loops and internal audits, and controls (including permit conditions) that the agencies rely upon to fulfill

t heir obligations under the ESA.
Figure 1 displays a normative model of a decision

- making process that includes these program elements and feedback loops. The process trigger on the left

- hand side of the figure (Box D1) might represent an application from a prospective per mittee or licensee, a request for prospective funding, or a prospective proposal that would be undertaken by a Federal Agency

. These process triggers are typically subjected to two screening processes (Box D2):

1. an initial screening process that is des igned to insure that proposals minimally comply with statutory, regulatory, or policy requirements that are applicable to requests for permits, licenses, or funding ; and
,
2. secondary screening processes that are designed to insure that an Agency satisfies the statutory, regulatory, or policy requirements or criteria that must be met before an Agency can issue a permit, license, or funding.
For example, the screening process the EPA applies to general permits includes reviews for completeness; analyses for compliance with Clean Water Act (CWA) guidelines; compliance with S tate water quality standards; compliance with toxic effluent standards; and compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Agency screening processes typically produce rec ommendations to Agency decision

- makers, who have the authority to make final decisions on Agency Actions ( Figure 1
, Box D3). Following those decisions, the Action Agency, permittee, licensee, or funding recipient under takes the action, including any term s or conditions the Action Agency has attached ( Figure 1
, Box O1). The action produces a set of direct, indirect, and aggregate effects on the environ

ment and any living organisms that occur in or rely on the environment that is affected by the action ( F igure 1
, Box O2) and the condition of the environment changes in response to those effects ( Figure 1
, Box O3).
Figure 1 also displays a program that contains an audit function represented by a monitoring component ( Figure 1
, Lines M1 to M4), a feedback co mponent ( Figure 1 , Lines F1 to F4), and an information gathering and evaluation component that informs a screening process ( Figure 1 , Box D2.1). The monitor ing component would collect empirical information on individual actions or a sample of individual actions to (a) identify what action actually occurred for comparison with the action that had been proposed and approved (implementation monitoring; Figure
1
, Line M1); (b) identify which terms and conditions, if any, were satisfied, including any mitigati on measures that were required (implementation monitoring; Figure 1
, Line M1) ; (c) gather empirical information on the action’s direct and indirect effects on the environment, including the effectiveness of any mitigation measures that had been required (v alidation and compliance monitoring; Figure 1
, Line M2) ; (d) gather the empirical evidence to determine whether or to what degree the environment changed in response to those effects ( Figure 1 , Line M3); and (e) gather the empirical evidence sufficien t to determine whether a proposal contributed to environmental conditions that do not meet program purposes and standards (compliance monitoring; Figure 1, Line M4). The feedback component evaluates empirical data collected by monitoring and incorporates those data into Agency decisions about prior or subsequent actions ( Figure 1, Lines F1 through F4).

Five components are critical to our assessment of whether a general permit would be expected to insure that individual actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the program comply with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.A NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

3 Figure 1 . A normative model of a decision

- making process that includes these program elements and feedback loops. See text for further explanationA NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

4 The first critical componen t is the screening process an Agency applies to specific actions authorized, funded, or carried out by a program. When we examine this component of an Agency’s decision

- making process, questions we ask include: What standards apply to the screening proces s? How rigorous are those standards? How rigorously does the Action Agency apply those standards? Are proposals assumed to comply with an Agency’s statute barring evidence of non

- compliance or vice versa?
The second critical component is the informati on that forms the foundation for the Agency ’s screening process ( Figure 1 , Boxes D2.1, and D2.2). When we examine this component, questions we ask include: Does the Agency assess the individual and cumulative impacts of specific proposals? Does the Agenc y ’s methodology consider all of the variables that would have to be considered to deter mine whether a specific proposal is likely to have adverse consequence for endangered or threatened species and designated critical habitat? Do assessments employ data acquisition procedures that are likely to identify, gather, and analyze all of the information that would be relevant to identify the presence or absence of consequence for endangered or threatened species and designated critical habitat? Does the assess ment process incorporate quality assurance and quality control procedures? Are those procedures designed to prevent Type I decision error (falsely concluding that a proposal had an adverse impact), Type II decision error (falsely concluding that a proposa l had no adverse impact), or both?
The third critical component is an Action Agency’s decision

- making process, which includes the information and variables that inform the Agency’s decision on whether or not to authorize, fund, or implement an action and a ny conditions or terms the Agency attaches to its decision.
The fourth critical component is an audit function. Does the Action Agency audit the results of its actions? Are the monitoring and feedback loops ( Figure 1 , lines M1 to M4 and F1 to F4) designe d to allow the Agency to (a) collect empirical information that allows them to insure that specific actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are undertaken as designed (including any terms, conditions, or mitigation measures associated with the proposal) , (b) assess the actual effects of those actions, (c) determine whether the program is fulfilling its mandate, purposes, and goals with respect to the ESA

. The final critical component is the Agency ’s authority to modify its prior and subsequent decisions when new information (particularly information provided by the audit function) reveals that particular authorizations have not satisfied applicable environmental mandates, standards, criteria, and program purposes (the applicable environmental mandates in cludes compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA).
We organize our general permit consultations using a sequence of questions , listed below, that focus on the Agency ’s decision

- making process in general and the five critical components we just described. Those questions focus on whether and to what degree an Agency has structured a program so that the Agency is in a position to know or reliably estimate whether endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are likely to be : (a) exposed t o stressors associated with specific actions a program would authorize, fund, or carry out; (b) respond to that exposure; and (c) experience individual

- level, population

- level, or species

- level risks as a result of those
responses (or similar reductions in the features and value of critical habitat)

. Further, we ask whether or to what degree an Agency actively gathers that information, whether or to what degree an Agency incorporates that information into its decision

- making processes about specific action s, and whether or to what degree an Agency changes the decisions it makes about specific actions based on that information.A NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

5 Application of this Approach in this Consultation As we have already discussed, we treat the issuance of the proposed VGPs as “prog ram s ” that would authorize discharges of pollutants over a five

- year period. As we described earlier, during general permit consultations we ask whether or to what degree th e program s :

Collect or will have access to the information necessary to allow it to know how the actions it permits affect listed resources ;

E valuate that information to assess how its actions have affected endangered species, threatened species, and designated critical habitat; and
Uses its authorities to bring th ose activities into compliance.
Specific questions we ask about the proposed VGPs are:

1. Scope

H as the general p ermit been structured to reliably estimate the probable number, location and timing of the discharges that would be authorized by the program?

2. Stressors

H as the general permit been structured to reliably estimate the physical, chemical, or biotic stressors that are likely to be produced as a direct or indirect result of the discharges that would be authorized (that is, the stressors produced by the actual discharges to waters of the U.S.)?

3. Overlap

H as the general permit been structured to reliably estimate whether or to what degree specific endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are likely to be exposed to pot entially harmful impacts that the proposed permit would authorize?

4. Monitoring/Feedback

Has the general permit been structured to identify, collect, and analyze information about authorized actions that may have exposed endangered or threatened s pecies or designated critical habitat to stressors at concentrations, intensities, durations, or frequencies that are known or suspected to produce physical, physiological, behavioral, or ecological responses that have potential individual or cumulative ad verse consequences for individual organisms or constituent elements of critical habitat?

5. Responses of Listed Resources

Does the general permit have an analytical methodology that considers:

a) the status and trends of endangered or threatened spec ies or designated critical habitat;

b) the demographic and ecological status of populations and individuals of those species given their exposure to pre

- existing stressors in different drainages and watersheds;

c) the direct and indirect pathways by which enda ngered or threatened species or designated critical habitat might be exposed to the discharges to waters of the United States; andA NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

6 d) the physical, physiological, behavior, sociobiological, and ecological consequences of exposing endangered or threatened spe cies or designated critical habitat to stressors from discharges at concentrations, intensities, durations, or frequencies that could produce physical, physiological, behavioral, or ecological responses, given their pre

- existing demogr aphic and ecological condition?

6. Compliance

Does the general permit have a mechanism to reliably determine whether or to what degree operators have complied with the conditions, restrictions or mitigation measures the proposed permit requires when they discharge to waters of the United States?

7. Adequacy of Controls

Does the general permit have a mechanism to prevent or minimize endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat from being exposed to stressors from discharges:

a) at concentrations , durations, or frequencies that are potentially harmful to individual listed organisms, populations, or the species, or;

b) to ecological consequences that are potentially harmful to individual listed organisms, populations, the species or Primary Constitue nt Elements of designated critical habitat?

As with all of our consultations, we conduct our s ection 7 analyses through a series of steps. These include : a examination of the action; identification of the action area; exposure analyses; response analyses ; analyses of aggregate impacts; and risk analyses. These steps are described below.

PROPOSED A CTION In reviewing the proposed action and biological evaluation , the Services will examine the activities that would be author ized by the p roposed VGPs. This step of our analyses identifies spatial and temporal patterns associated with each category of activity; specifically (a) the geographic distribution of the different activities; (b) the number activities; (c) the amounts of pollutants that are likely to be discharged; and (d) the rate of discharges.
Our analysis will evaluate the effects of all discharges of biological and chemical pollutants to waters of the US incidental to the normal operation of all eligible vessels that would be authorized by the VGP s . In addition, the Services must consider the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions of the proposed action. Interdependent actions are actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed action ( 50 CFR 402

- 02 1 ) . They are typicall y a consequence of the proposed action. For example, if our consultation were evaluating the effects of building a road, an interdependent action would be the planned construction of homes and other structures that would not be accessible without the pres ence of that road. Interrelated actions are actions that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification (50 CFR 402

- 02 3 ) . They are actions that are typically associated with the proposed action.
In this consultation, NMFS would address the potential effects of the proposed action for marine, coastal, estuarine, or anadromous endangered species, threatened species, and critical habitat that has been designated for those species

1 See: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/402

- 02

- definitions

- 19895209A NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

7 in those ecosystems under its jurisdiction ; FWS would address the potential effects of the proposed action for terrestrial, freshwater, and resident estuarine endangered species, threatened species, and critical habitat that has been designated for those species under FWS’ jurisdiction in those ec osystems.

A CTION A REA The Services will determine the degree of geographic and temporal overlap between the activities that would be authorized by the proposed VGPs and endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat. The Action Area fo r this consultation consists of all waters of the United States in the United States, its territories, and its possessions (which includes American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, th e Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Wake Island) where discharges incidental to the normal o peration of all non

recreational and non

- military v essels are to be authorized by the EPA’s VGP s. Waters of the U.S. (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2 2 ) are:

1. All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

2. All interstate waters, including interstate “wetlands;”

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, “wetlands,” sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use
, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:

a. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;

b. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or

c. Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definitio n;

5. Tributaries of those waters described above;

6. The territorial sea; and

7. “Wetlands” adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands).

EXPOSURE ANALYSES Before assessing an agency’s decision

- making process (as described above), the Servi ces will first establish whether the proposed action could expose listed species and critical habitat to potentially harmful stressors and whether

2 See: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text

idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecf r;idno=40;region=DIV1;q1=122.2;rgn=div8;sid=eefc0a55c51938afa484bbfe4d9ea5a2;view=text; node=40%3A22.0.1.1.12.1.6.2A NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

8 listed species and critical habitats are likely to respond adversely. If exposure to stressors and adverse r esponses are not likely to occur, we do not assess the agency’s decision

- making process.

Our assessment will focus on whether and to what degree the EPA structured the VGPs in ways that would prevent or minimize endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that has been designated for those species from being exposed to harmful discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States and other harmful activities because such exposures commonly trigger responses that are difficult to prevent. For ex ample, once individual plants and animals are exposed to a discharge containing pollutants, their responses to the exposure is controlled by the concentration, duration, and frequency associated with the exposure, their sensitivity to the discharged materi als, other physical, chemical, or biotic stressors they are exposed to in the same time interval, their pre

- existing physiological state, and their constitutional endowment. Because it is so difficult to prevent free

- ranging organisms from responding to a n thropogenic stressors once they have been exposed, the most effective management measures are designed to influence the exposure itself. For that reason, our assessment focuses on whether and to what degree the VGP s prevent or minimize endangered and threa tened species and designated critical habitat from being exposed to harmful discharges and other harmful activities that would be authorized by the proposed VGPs. Rather than discuss the literature for each species, it would be only be necessary to discus s the risks of exposing species groups (for example, Pacific Salmon; Sturgeon; Sea Turtles; etc.).

RESPONSE ANALYSES

The Services will c onduct a detailed review of the literature available on the physical, physiological, behavioral, social, and ecological responses of endangered or threatened species or constituent elements of critical habitat given exposure to harmful discharges into waters of the United States or to the effects of those discharges and the activities associated with those activities on th e ecology of the watersheds in which they occur (that is, effects resulting from changes in populations of prey, predators, competitors, symbionts, etc.). Rather than discuss the literature for each species, we organize the data using species groups (for example, Pacific Salmon; Sturgeon; Sea Turtles; etc.). We summarize the probable consequences of the identified responses for populations of endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat.

TREATMENT OF AGGREGA TE IMPACTS

To address t he question of whether the activities that would be authorized by the proposed VGPs have direct and indirect effects on listed resources that are sufficiently small both individually and in aggregate, we explicitly consider the aggregate impacts of the pro posed permits in the Effects of the Action chapter of our Opinion. This usage of “aggregate impacts” is distinct from the term “cumulative effects” which the section 7 regulations defines as “those effects of future State or private activities, not involvi ng Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation” (50 CFR 402.02).
Aggregate impacts include: (1) t ime

- crowded perturbations or perturbations that are so close in time that th e effects of one perturbation do not dissipate before a subsequent perturbation occurs; (2) s pace

- crowded perturbations or perturbations that are so close in s pace that their effects overlap; (3) i nteractions or perturbations that have qualitatively and qu antitatively different consequences for the ecosystems, ecological communities, populations, or individuals exposed to them because of synergism (when stressors produce fundamentally different effects inA NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

9 combination than they do individually), additivity, magnification (when a combination of stressors have effects that are more than additive), or antagonism (when two or more stressors have less effect in combina tion than they do individually); and (4) n ibbling or incremental and decremental effects are ofte n, but not always, involved in each of the preceding three categories (NRC 1986).

RISK ANALYSES The Services help Action Agencies determine whether or to what degree they have complied with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by assessing whet her and to what degree an Agency has structured a program so that the Agency is in a position to know or reliably estimate: (a) whether endangered or threatened species are likely to be placed at increased risk of extinction, or (b) if those species avoid extinction, whether they are likely to experience increased risk of failing to recover from having been endangered or threatened because of the actions the program authorizes, funds, or carries out.
Our consideration of how well an Agency’s program manage s risks to endangered and threatened species reflects the relationship between a listed species, the populations it comprises, and the individuals those populations comprise. The continued existence of a species is determined by the fate of the population s it comprises and the continued existence of a population is determined by the fate of the individuals they comprise. Populations grow or decline as the individuals they comprise live, die, grow, mature, migrate, and reproduce, or fail to do so. When we assess whether or to what degree an Agency’s program is likely to eliminate or avoid risks to endangered or threatened species, we are mindful of the distinction between species, the populations they comprise, and the individuals comprised by those popula tions.
When we assess whether or to what degree an Agency’s program is likely to eliminate or avoid risks to individual members of endangered or threatened species, we think in terms of the individuals’ fitness, which integrates an individuals’ longevity w ith its current and future reproductive success. In particular, we examine the scientific and commercial data available to determine if an individ ual’s probable response to stressors produced by an Action would reasonably be expected to reduce the indivi dual’s current or expected future reproductive success by increasing an individual’s likelihood of dying prematurely, increasing the age at which it becomes reproductively mature, reducing the age at which it stops reproducing, reducing the number of live births it produces during any reproductive bout, reducing the number of reproductive bouts it engages in over its reproduct ive lifespan (in animals that reproduce multiple times), or causing the individual’s progeny to experience any of these phenomena (B rommer 2000, Brommer et al . 1998, 2002; Clutton

- Brock 1998, Coulson et al . 2006, Kotiaho et al . 2005, McGraw and Caswell 1996, Newton and Rothery 1997, Oli and Dobson 2003, Roff 2002, Stearns 1992, Turchin 2003).

We evaluate whether individual members of a n endangered or threatened species experience reductions in their current or expected future reproductive success or experience reductions in the rates at which they grow, mature, or become reproductively active. Then we determine if those reductions also reduce the abundance, reproduction rates, and growth rates (or increase variance in one or more of these rates) of the populations those individuals represent (see Stearns 1992). Similarly, we determine if those population

- level reductions reduce the viab ility of the species those population(s) comprise. Our general permit assessments focus on whether or to what degree an Agency’s program is likely to insure that the direct or indirect effects of actions the program would authorize are not likely to reduce the fitness of listed individuals to a degree that would be sufficient to reduce the viability of the population(s) those individuals represent and jeopardize the survival and recovery of the species.A NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

10 Our consideration of how well an Agency’s program mana ges risks to designated critical habitat focuses on the value of the physical, chemical, or biotic phenomena of the critical habitat for the conservation of the endangered and threatened species for which the critical habitat was designated. In this step of our assessment, we consider information about the contribution of constituent elements of critical habitat (or of the physical, chemical, or biotic features that give the designated area value for the conservation of listed species, particularly for old er critical habitat designations that have no constituent elements) to the conservation value of those areas of critical habitat that occur in the action area. Then we consider the contribution of the conservation value of those areas to the conservation value of the entire critical habitat designation. Our general permit assessments focus on whether or to what degree an Agency’s program is likely to insure that the direct or indirect effects of actions the program would authorize are not likely to reduce the value of the physical, chemical, or biotic phenomena of the critical habitat areas affected or are not likely to reduce that value of the physical, chemical, or biotic phenomena to a degree that would be sufficient to reduce the value of the entire cr itical habitat for the conservation of the endangered and threatened species for which the critical habitat was designated.

Evidence Available for the Consultation For all of the above analyses, the Services will rely on two bodies of evidence for this con sultation. We will use the first body of evidence to determine whether or to what degree the proposed general permit s can insure that vessel discharges on, over, or near waters of the United States are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

e ndangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat that has been designated for those species. To build this body of evidence, we will search for, gather, and analyze published and unpublished sources that examine the effectiveness previous programs
, and whether or to what degree the program has had: (1) adverse consequences for natural flora and fauna that have some dependency on the quality of waters of the United States, or (2) adverse consequences for species that have been listed as endangered or threatened. In particular, we will consider information contained in biological assessments
, program reviews of effectiveness
, compliance monitoring databases, risk assessments and ESA Section 7 consultat ions on similar actions , species status reviews, listing documents, recovery plans, reports on the status and trends of water quality, past and current research and population dynamics modeling

. We will supplement this information by searching for complia nce data from available databases that track the number of inspections and enforcement actions over time

.
We will use a second body of evidence to assess the probable consequences of authorizing discharges of pollutants on, over, or near waters of the Uni ted States to endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that has been designated for those species. To assemble this body of information, we shall search peer

- reviewed scientific literature, master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, governmen t reports and studies and reports from commercial vendors. For example, the National Library of Medicine’s Hazardous Substance Data Bank, TOXNET, Toxline, EXTOXNET pesticide information profiles provide information on the toxicity of the pollutants

. Thes e searches will focus on identifying recent information on the biology, ecology, distribution, status, and trends of the threatened and endangered species considered in this consultation

. We will consider the results of these searches based on the quality of their study design, sample sizes and study results. Studies that relied on large sample sizes with small variances will be generally ranked higher than studies that relied on small sample sizes or large variances.A NALYSIS P LAN FOR C ONSULTATION ON THE US EPA’ S V ESSEL G ENERAL P ERMITS 2012

- 2017

11 Literature Cited Brommer, J. E., H. Pietainen, and H. Kolunen. 1998. The effect of age at first breeding on Ural owl lifetime reproductive success and fitness under cyclic food conditions. The Journal of Animal Ecology 67:359

- 369.

Brommer, J.E. 2000. The evolution of fitness in life

- histor y theory. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 75(3):377

- 404. Brommer, J. E., J. Merila, and H. Kokko. 2002. Reproductive timing and individual fitness. Ecology Letters 5:802

- 810. Clutton

- Brock, T. H., I. R. Stevenson, P. Marrow, A. D . MacColl, A. I. Houston, and J. M. McNamara. 1996. Population fluctuations, reproductive costs and life

- history tactics in female Soay sheep. The Journal of Animal Ecology 65:15.
Coulson, T., T. G. Benton, P. Lundberg, S. R. X. Dall, B. E. Kendall, and J. M. Gaillard. 2006. Estimating individual contributions to population growth: evolutionary fitness in ecological time. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 273: 547

- 555.
Kotiaho, J.S., V. Kaitala, A. Komonen and J. Pa ivinen. 2005. Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(6):1963

- 1967.
McGraw, J. B., and H. Caswell. 1996. Estimation of individual fitness from life

- history data. The American Naturalist 147:47

– 64.
National Research Council. 1986. The special problem of cumulative effects. Pages 93

- 136 In : Ecological knowledge and environmental problem

- solving. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Newt on, I. and P. Rothery. 1997. Senescence and reproductive value in sparrowhawks. Ecology 78:1000

- 1008.
Oli, M.K. and F.S. Dobson. 2003. The relative importance of life

- history variables to population growth rate in mammals: Cole's prediction revisited. The American Naturalist 161(3):422

- 440.
Roff, D.A. 2002. Life history evolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc.; Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Stearns, S. C. 1992, The evolution of life histories. New York, New York, Oxford University Press.
Turchin, P. 2003. Complex p opulation dynamics: a theoretical/empirical synthesis. Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey.