|
<br />002358
<br />
<br />Federal
<br />
<br />Regl
<br />
<br />forestalling imminent extinctions. .
<br />Allhough. as noted by CEE. this may
<br />result in listing resources being devoted
<br />to species whose recovery would be
<br />difficult and costly. such considerations
<br />are addressed in the recovery priority
<br />system. where recovery potential is
<br />expressly considered. Inasmuch as
<br />listing is an identification process. it
<br />appears to be most appropriate to
<br />proceed on a "worst.first" basis and list
<br />those species in greatest immediate -
<br />danger of extinction first. Inclusion oC a
<br />"benefit from listing" criterion would
<br />nol. in the opinion of the Sen'ice.
<br />improve the priority system. The Service
<br />believes that aU listed species derive
<br />some benefit from their identification a8
<br />Endangered or Threatened. The
<br />magnitude of such benefits. however,
<br />are often largely unpredictable at the
<br />time of listing and would be difficult to
<br />quantify within the framework of a
<br />simple. workable priority system. The
<br />Service also rejects the inclusion of an
<br />"availability of information" criterion in
<br />the priority system because this seems
<br />unnecessary. Availability of information
<br />adequate to determine a species' status
<br />is necessary before any assessment of
<br />the appropriateness of listing can be
<br />addressed. To this extent, availability of
<br />information lSlmplicit in any priority
<br />system that might be adopted. and its
<br />statement as an explicit criterion adds
<br />lillle. if anything, to the effectiveness DC
<br />the system. CEE also expresses concern
<br />that. if information were to become
<br />available on a group of species in a
<br />particular area indicating that some
<br />were eligible for listing as Endangered
<br />and others as Threatened. the proposed
<br />system might preclude listing of all the
<br />e.Hgiole spede.'3 in ~he area. 'The Serv'\ce
<br />believes that it retains sufficient
<br />flex.ibility under the proposed system to
<br />proceed with listings of all the
<br />appropriate species in such a situation
<br />when this would increase the o\'erall
<br />efficiency of the listing process by
<br />avoiding duplicative regulations. It
<br />should be recognized that the selling of
<br />listing priorities is an intermittent. rather
<br />than continuous. activity. and that
<br />_ information developed on a species
<br />believed to have a high priority mny
<br />indicate that a lower priority is juslified.
<br />but that this situation would not
<br />necessarily preclude its being listed
<br />while the status information was
<br />available and current. CEE further takes
<br />issue with the proposed s~.stem's
<br />"taxonomy" criterion, stating:
<br />
<br />II may be true that certain monolypic
<br />genera of plants such as the three redwoods
<br />Ihal dominate particular ecosystems make an
<br />important and irreplaceable contribution 10
<br />maintenance of the diversilv of those
<br />ecosystems, but it doesn.' follow thai
<br />
<br />I Vol. 48, No. 184 / Wednesday,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />September 21.
<br />
<br />43099
<br />
<br />subspecie! of coyole bush are any more
<br />inlerchangeable or less imporlant in
<br />chapalTal eco!ystems, An ecological .
<br />preference for prp.serving mono typic genera
<br />of animals makes even less sense. II appeara
<br />th8~ ~he CaHrornia condor. 8 m.onotypic.
<br />genus. may ha\fe less ecosystem impact thai
<br />any of several butlerfly subspecies,
<br />
<br />The Service believes that the CEE
<br />comment confounds \wo different
<br />concepts. Ta}(onomy is included in \he
<br />proposed system as a crude reflection of
<br />genetic distinctness in an attempt to
<br />provide far the preservation of
<br />maximum genetic diversity in
<br />ecosystems. Genetic distinctnes5 of a
<br />taxon. however. may have little bearing
<br />on the importance of the taxon's impact
<br />, on the functioning of the ecosystem to
<br />which it belongs. Judging s taxon's
<br />functional contribution to its ecosystem
<br />is generally much more difficult and
<br />does not lend itself to the framework of
<br />a simple priorily system. The,Service
<br />recognizes that there are aspects of
<br />species' biology, such as this one. that
<br />are not appropriately incorporated
<br />within the listing priority system. and it
<br />is. for this reaSon that the system is not
<br />designed to be used in a rigid fashion.
<br />The Service has attempted to use the
<br />system flexibly so that important
<br />biological considerations that lnll
<br />outside the scope of consideration of the
<br />system can figure into particular
<br />decisions on sn ad hoc basis.
<br />The CEE comment further disputes the
<br />appropriateness of giving consideration
<br />to monotypic genera in setting Ii!! ting
<br />priorities. citing the large number of
<br />mono typic genera of hummingbirds and.
<br />the apparent lack of accompanying
<br />genetic diversity in the group. The
<br />Service recogniz.es that the
<br />consideration given mono typic genera is
<br />only an approximate measure of genetic
<br />distinctness and that taxonomic
<br />concepts and standards vary among
<br />different groups of organisms, _
<br />Nevertheless. if used with proper ,"
<br />understanding of this lack of tax.onomic
<br />uniformity, the criterion appears to be
<br />useful and is retained in the priority
<br />system. In practical terms, the Service
<br />expects to only rarely have need for the
<br />priority categories renecting monolypic
<br />genera. because there are relatively few
<br />such taxa among the candidate species
<br />now recognized, but believes that such
<br />taxa generally renect a level of genetic
<br />distinctiveness worth noting in the
<br />system. It should also be recognized that
<br />the system only sets relative priorities
<br />and that this is the lowest order of
<br />priority-setting. 80 that a species would
<br />at m09t move up one level in priority by
<br />virtue of its representing a monotypic
<br />genus. and species not representing
<br />mono typic genera would only raok
<br />
<br />1983 / Notices
<br />
<br />below monotypic genera facing equally
<br />serious and immediate threats.
<br />Finally. the CEE comment cites Ihe
<br />1982 Senate Committee Report on ..
<br />amendments to the Endangered Species
<br />Act and its stated preference only for .-
<br />listing species before subspecies and
<br />subspecies before populations as ...
<br />justification for deleting consideration . .
<br />for mono typic genera. CEE notes that .
<br />the importance attached' to monotJ.'pic
<br />genera in the proposed system appears
<br />to imply a value of species not provided
<br />for in Section 2 of the Act. which refers
<br />to "esthetic, ecological. educational.
<br />historica!. recreational, and scientific"
<br />values of species, The Service believes
<br />that the Act's provision that species are,
<br />of educational and scientific value more
<br />than adequately justifies the modes I
<br />consideration proposed to be given
<br />mono typic genera, which may represent
<br />higbly distinct gene-pools deserving of
<br />continuing scientific and educational
<br />attention. ..'
<br />The Ecological Society of America
<br />(ESAl expressed general support for the
<br />proposed system.. but made several"
<br />recommendations for changes. ESA ~.,' .'~
<br />recommended that greater emphasis be .
<br />placed on listing candidate species than.
<br />on deltsUng '3I1eci.e'B no kmgit.t in need of
<br />protection. noting that the possibility of .
<br />removing a species. from the list is . '.
<br />always open. whereas extinction may".:;,..
<br />foreclooe the option of listing some ".::
<br />species, The Servi~e agrees in principal
<br />with this comment. as explaui..:d below
<br />in response to a similar comment from
<br />the Environmfmtal De.fense Fund. ,t...~~ ..
<br />ESA also observed that the average "'-'.
<br />number of species per genus is generally, '
<br />lower among higher organisms, e.g" ., I'
<br />mammals and birds, than among various
<br />invertebrate groups and plants. because
<br />of differing taxonomic concepts and ' ,
<br />" standards. They expressed concern that' ';,'"
<br />the consideration afforded monotypic
<br />genera in the proposed system could .
<br />thus work to favor vertebrate species. 8S
<br />in .the former system that was. expressly
<br />rejected by Congress. The Service
<br />belioves that the benefil of affording ':','~
<br />consideration to taxonomic distinctness'
<br />if Ihe consideration is applied flexibly "
<br />and with due appreciation of differing ~
<br />taxonomic standards, outweighs any ~~
<br />biss that might be introduced into Ihe
<br />priority-setting process.
<br />fn a related observstion. ESA poinled
<br />out thai there are highly distinct ,
<br />organisms that are nevertheless not
<br />placed in mono typic genera. snd that the
<br />taxonomic criteria contained in the _
<br />system are inflexible. The Service. as ...:
<br />has been pointed out previously, does . --}'~'
<br />nol view any facet of the system 8S . ~.."'~~, ~-; .;,:'.
<br />inflexible. and will reserve tha . '. "ltf. .:...: :
<br />
<br />..,.'
<br />
<br />...,..:;i/'
<br />~ '. ':'-;':,"
<br />, !,!c-'
<br />. . ..~. '. ~ .~~,:.:... 'r ;.".::-:-:-
<br />..f' . .....:J:\.
<br />. ...:.,...... - ~
<br />
<br />:,.""
<br />..~-:i~;.i.:;~
<br />" ~ :~~r:r~
<br />''-~'if.J.
<br />._',....,~.~' .~
<br />. '.~" - '
<br />.. _ "\...'t,.. ;;'1
<br />..~~~
<br />
|