WSP10384

• File Number: 8065
• Description: Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 9/21/1983
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Fish and Wildlife Service - Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines - Federal Register - Volume 48-Number 184 - Notices
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

, .

., 002357 .. .
43098 Federal Regis,er / Vol. 48. No. 184 / Wednesday, September 21. 1983 / Notices'

4F qi-J- <g' 3

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Specie.
Usting and Recovery Priority
Guidelinea

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife SerVice.
Interior.
ACTION: NoUce.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has developed guidelines
governing the assignment of priorities to
..species lor listing as Endangered and
Threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. as amended (Act)
and development and implementation of
rec.overy plana for species that Bre listed
under the Act. The guidelines aid in
determining how to make the most
appropriate use at resources available
10 implement the Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The guidelines Bre
adopted as of September 21.1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON CONTACT:
Mr. John L. Spinks. ]r.. Chief. Office of
Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washing Ion. D.C.
20240. [703/235-2771).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General

The Service recognizes that it is
necessary to assign priorities to listing.
delistins. reclassification, and recovery
actions in order to make \he most
appropriate use of the limited resources
available to implement the Ac\. The
following priority systems are based on
an analysis of such factors 8S degree
and immediacy of threat faced by a
species. needs for Curhter information.
and species' recovery potentials.
Inasmuch as such assessments are
subjective to 80me degree. and
individual species may not be

comparable in terms of all - -
considerations. the priority systems
presented must be viewed as guides and
should not be looked upon as inflexible
frameworks for determining resource .;:~
allocations. Draft guidelines were' ....,~<:~
published on ApIi119. 1983 [49 FR ",'-'" '-'
18756). These Iinalguidelines are hased
on Ihat draft.' "',,,c"

Summary of Comments and .... .":..1
Recommendations . ..,,;.:;\-:!
. : ..~~"

Comments were received from the
following organizations: the Center for
Environmental Education (also
representing Defenders of Wildlife.
Humane Society of the United States. ' ,
and Natural Resources Defense .,."
Council): Chevron U.S.A.. Inc.: The :...
Ecological Society of America:
Environmental Defense Fund: the law
firm of McCarty, Noone and Williams '.
(representing the Colorado River Water
Conservation District); Pacific Legal
Foundation; Western. Timber
Association; and Wildlife Legislative
Fund of Amenca. Three of the comments
expressed general support for the
guidelines as proposed. without offering
sny recommendations for change.
Substantive recommendations are
addressed helow:

Comments on Listing. Delisling. and
Reclassification Priorities . . ~ . .

Because of the detailed and specific
nature of comments on the listing
portion of the guidelines. they are
addressed individually. The Center for
Environmental Education el 01. (CEE) -_
recommended that the Service
emphasize listing of qualified species . '~:i
over delisting of species no longer in
need of protection. and also stated that
delis ling should be undertaken only for. ;. '
species with no present ~eed for . ; a..~5'....
protection and unlikely to need such :i.tiT....,.
protection in the future. The Service \.:~~;
agrees in principal.with this commenllt ..:. ..
should be recognized. however. that the ;
retention of recovered or extinct species .
on the lists undermines the overall ~,.
credibility of the lists. and the Service
believes that it is justifiable to devote '.'
resources to the removal of such species .. ~ .
when they are identified. : ;'\r.~'~'
CEE also expressed concern that '.;. .,.~""--..-
consideration of degree and immediacy .
of threat be tempered by 8 considerqlion
of benefit from li,ting and availability of
information, They favored subsuming
immediacy within degree of threat and
adding the other two considerations a8
"pragmatic" criteria in the system, The
Service continues to believe that :. I .
separate c~nsideration of immediacy is '.~j->
, warranted In order to help ensure that .-..;. ..",..'
.. - the system is most effective in .... ?t"",l :.:M;;
. ....--

'",;:,,;: ~ " .:\:r">t~
. .' --. -., . ~'./_'-,' ~-., . ....g
._' ." '..-. "_~:~~"" --.....,.ao!t"