This section discusses the organization of FWS, the provisions of the ESA, and the life cycle of the ABB. Among its duties, FWS is responsible for administering the ESA for certain species, including terrestrial species, such as the ABB. FWS headquarters, regions, and field offices are responsible for implementing the ESA within their area of responsibility. Since 2008, FWS’s Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office within FWS’s Southwest Region has served as the lead field office for the ABB. Figure 1 shows a map of FWS regions and the Ecological Services field offices in areas where ABBs are known or believed to be present. The purposes of the ESA include providing a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved and providing a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. Section 4 of the ESA contains the requirements and processes for listing or delisting a species as endangered or threatened, designating critical habitat, and developing a recovery plan for a listed species. Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA generally prohibit the “take” of endangered species unless the take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations direct a federal agency to consult with FWS when the agency determines that an action it authorizes, funds, or carries out may affect a listed species or critical habitat. Federal actions requiring consultation under section 7 include issuing nonfederal entities a permit or license for their activities. For example, oil and gas companies are required to get a permit from the Bureau of Land Management before drilling into a federally owned mineral estate. If the agency, with FWS’s concurrence through informal consultation, determines that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the listed species or its critical habitat, then formal consultation is not required. Formal consultation usually ends with FWS issuing a biological opinion for the proposed action, which may include an incidental take statement containing provisions that the project proponent must comply with to minimize the project’s impact on the species. Under section 10 of the ESA, for actions by project proponents that might take a listed species and that do not have a federal nexus—such as federal funding, approval, or permit— the Secretary of the Interior may issue permits to allow “incidental take” of listed species. Table 1 summarizes key provisions of the ESA. At about 1-1/2 inches long, the ABB is the largest of the North American carrion beetles, known for its orange-red markings and named for its unique behavior of burying animal carcasses—such as birds and small mammals—to provide a source of nourishment for its developing young. ABBs depend on dead animals for food and reproduction. The ABB is an annual species that lives underground and emerges nocturnally when surface temperatures consistently exceed 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Once emerged, the ABB seeks a suitable carcass and competes for a mate. The mated pair then buries the carcass, which the ABB uses to sustain its young. The ABB is a winged insect, and, according to FWS’s evaluation of available research, it can travel up to 18 miles in one night. The ABB pair raises its young underground using chemical secretions to preserve the carcass for its offspring. Figure 2 shows two ABB specimens. Through its actions to find and bury carcasses in the soil, ABBs are beneficial in controlling pests, converting carcasses into soil nutrients, and aerating the soil. To preserve the carcasses of their prey, ABBs secrete chemicals that researchers are studying for applicability in treating bacterial infections, preventing fungal growth, and preserving meat at room temperature for human consumption. According to scientists, ABBs also benefit human health and agriculture by reducing disease vectors. Specifically, ABBs limit outbreaks of flies and other animals that could affect livestock production. ABBs are one of the few insects that provide parental care for their offspring. In addition, ABBs are considered an indicator species that is useful in evaluating the overall health of the environment. Figure 3 shows the life cycle of the typical ABB. According to FWS documentation, the ABB, which was once found in more than 30 states, had disappeared from over 90 percent of its historical range by March 2008. The exact reasons for the decline of the ABB are unknown. However, according to FWS documentation, biologists have identified some potential reasons for the decline, such as the elimination or decline of appropriate-sized carcasses, habitat loss and fragmentation due to widespread agriculture and development, and increased competition from other animals and invasive species. According to officials at FWS, the agency improves its knowledge about the ABB through research and scientific surveys to detect and record the presence of the ABB in specific locations, which must be conducted during the ABB’s limited active season. Appendix II provides more detail about the species’ current and historical range. FWS has sought to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts on the ABB from construction and other projects by discussing mitigation options with project proponents and by requiring mitigation activities. These discussions can result in project proponents choosing to incorporate mitigation options into project proposals. FWS may also require project proponents to take mitigation actions specified in incidental take statements included in biological opinions it issues or habitat conservation plans it approves. To help monitor project proponents’ mitigation actions, FWS records information about certain types of these discussions in its TAILS database. In their discussions with project proponents about protecting endangered and threatened species, FWS officials said they use the principles contained in the agency’s 1981 mitigation policy, which outlines a hierarchy of actions to address potential harm to fish and wildlife resources that can occur as a result of construction and other projects. The first step in this hierarchy of actions is to avoid any impact on the listed species, such as by relocating the construction site outside the species’ habitat. The second step is to minimize the impact on the species, such as by placing restrictions on when construction or other activities can occur. According to FWS documentation, FWS can recommend a combination of avoidance and minimization measures to protect listed species. FWS has worked with project proponents to develop avoidance measures for the ABB in an effort to help ensure that projects do not have a direct or indirect adverse impact on the ABB. For example, some Ecological Services field offices recommend that project proponents conduct presence surveys for the ABB if the project is located where ABBs may be present, and, according to FWS officials, project proponents often choose to conduct such surveys. According to FWS documentation, if surveys indicate that no ABB are present within the project area, the project proponent may conduct its project at the proposed location with concurrence from FWS that the project is not likely to adversely affect the ABB. Other examples of avoidance efforts for the ABB include the following: Officials in the South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office said that sometimes project proponents have relocated their projects to avoid potential harm to the ABB. For example, in 2009 a project proponent selected a site for a wind development project outside the ABB’s range in South Dakota, and officials said that ABB presence was likely one factor that influenced the selection of that site. According to these officials, project proponents in South Dakota are able to select alternative project sites to avoid potential impacts on the ABB, in general, because ABB are known to be present in only a few counties in the state, where little development occurs. In 2011, the New England Ecological Services Field Office and a project proponent agreed that the project proponent could avoid harming the ABB for an airport lighting project on Block Island in Rhode Island by eliminating certain activities that could cause ground disturbance. For example, the project proponent agreed, among other things, to leave buried cable in place and decided not to excavate existing lighting poles in areas where ABB could be living. Officials in the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office stated that they provide project proponents in Oklahoma with the option to avoid take of the ABB by locating projects in habitat unfavorable to the ABB or where surveys indicate no ABB presence in the area. For example, FWS considers land to be unfavorable to the ABB if it is tilled on a regular basis or located in urban areas with paved surfaces or roadways. FWS has also worked with project proponents in other cases to minimize potential impacts on the species when avoidance was not feasible. For example, some incidental take statements included in FWS biological opinions discuss reducing disturbances to soil in areas considered suitable habitat for the ABB and require restoration of any soil that is disturbed in these areas to its natural state after construction as ways for project proponents to minimize their projects’ potential impacts on the ABB. Other examples of minimization efforts for the ABB include the following: In 2009, the Kansas Ecological Services Field Office required a project proponent to mow vegetation in areas that would be directly disturbed during the installation of a water pipeline. According to FWS’s biological opinion for this project, mowing vegetation on at least a monthly basis during the ABB’s active period would make the area less attractive to the ABB and therefore help minimize potential adverse impacts on the species by reducing the likelihood that ABB would be present in the areas where the project proponent would be disturbing the ground. In 2010, the South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office issued a biological opinion to the Federal Highway Administration for stream crossing projects. The incidental take statement included in the biological opinion required that the agency use construction practices that would minimally impact suitable habitat for the ABB adjacent to the project area. In 2014, the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office developed the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan.