Administrators in Washington simply threw out biologists’ recommendation to list as endangered the Rim Country’s Northern Mexican Garter Snake, according to an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General.
The controversial head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a few handwritten notes rejecting the conclusions of the field biologists at the beginning of a long report. Wildlife service administrators in Washington then concluded the Northern Mexican Garter Snake couldn’t be listed without more information from Mexico — where the snake was already classified as endangered.
A lawsuit by an environmental group subsequently forced the Fish and Wildlife Service to reverse that finding, one of more than a dozen cases in which the inspector general concluded decisions to overrule field biologists cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and harmed many species.
Jeffrey Servoss, a biologist in the region that includes the Rim Country, told investigators he originally recommended the Wildlife Service list the Northern Mexican Garter Snake as endangered, since the once-wide-ranging, fish-hunting reptile persisted only in Tonto Creek and a few isolated stock ponds. Its range had also declined drastically in northern Mexico, but studies there remained fragmentary and incomplete.
His recommendation went to Washington, but pages 8 through 14 of a 160-page report came back about a week later with hand-written notes from Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald indicating the report should instead reject a listing in the U.S. due to the lack of reliable information from Mexico.
Servoss told investigators it appeared MacDonald hadn’t read the full report, since later sections of the report included extensive information from Mexico.
Servoss said he reluctantly agreed to change the recommendation, but left intact all the scientific information that underscored his original conclusion.
An attorney from the Solictor’s Office reviewed the revised recommendation and concluded that it was “legally indefensible,” because the scientific information Servoss left in the back of the report contradicted the findings.
Nonetheless, the Wildlife Service concluded the snake should not be listed as endangered, citing the uncertainty about the snake’s exact status in Mexico.
Environmental groups sued and the Wildlife Service reversed its position.
