Table 1.
Candidate generalized linear and ordinal regression models for predicting overall consultation completeness and conservation action specificity.
Table 2.
Summary statistics across all 123 formal and informal consultations.
Fig 1.
Completeness scores for NMFS consultations were higher on average than scores for FWS consultations across all consultations (A), formal consultations (B), and informal consultations (C). The overall completeness score for each consultation is the sum of points scored divided by the sum of points possible (see Methods for details). Top panel: Histogram and boxplots of all consultations (formal and informal, including programmatic consultations) for each Service. Bottom panel: Overall scores plotted by Service for formal and informal consultations separately.
Table 3.
Generalized linear model selection results for overall completeness across 123 FWS and NMFS consultations.
Table 4.
Odds ratios (OR), confidence intervals, and parameter statistics for model 9, the best-supported candidate set for predicting overall consultation completeness.
Fig 2.
Individual components of consultations produced by NMFS showed higher completeness scores than those by FWS on average.
However, the only component that statistically differed between the Services was the Environmental Baseline (z = 5.3993, p = 6.691e-08; ORNMFS = 2.6e4 [95% CI = 6.5e2–1.1e6]). The scores are the raw completeness scores for formal consultation components.
Fig 3.
Informal consultations from NMFS featured more information and therefore showed higher completeness scores than those from FWS on average.
The components of informal consultation completeness scores were binary (0 indicates absence; 1 indicates presence) in the consultations.
Table 5.
Responses to a selected sample of consultation process questions asked of FWS/NMFS biologists.