WSP10384 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002359 .. .. 43100 Federal R~er I Vol. 48. No. 184 I Wednesday. Se~mber 21. 19B3 I Notices discretion to assign appropriate priorities to highly distinct and genetically isolated organisms whether or not Ihey constitute monotypic genera. Finally. ESA requested a clarification of the applicability of the proposed system to unnamed populations. The . Act includes populations of vertebrate animals in its definition of "species." Because this portion of the definition applies only to vertebrates. it appears' inadvisable to incorporate it formally into the priority system. The Service inlends 10 generally afford vertebrate populations the same consideration 8S subspecies. but when 8 candidate subspecies and a candidate population have the same numerical priority. the candidate subspecies will generally have priority. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) expressed concern that too much time might be devoted to setting of species priorities. and that Ihis might detract from actual implementing of listing tasks. The Service agrees that no more time than is necessary should be devoted to the assigning of priorities. Because of this consideration. the Service has deliberately attempted to formulate a system that is simple and that assigns species priorities in a straightforward manner without the need for complex analysis. EDF also l~xpressed concern over the interrelalionship of the three systems contained In Tables 1.. 2.. and 3. As explained below in the summary of comments on the recovery priority syst~m, Tables 1. and 2. are largely independent of Table 3. Further. it is not possible. in the opinion of the Service. to fonnulate 8 direct relationship between the systems in Tables 1. and 2. As is explained in the narrative portion of the guidelines. it is anticipated that the need to delist species or reclassify them from Endangered \0 Threatened will be identified largely through mandated 5. year reviews or through petitions. Once such Bctions have been identified and assigned priorities. they will be considered for possible action within the Service's annual planning process. Establishing specific criteria for ranking the priorities of listing propo:?Bls ver!lUS delisting proposals would take away the flexibility needed by the Scn'ice to efficiently apportion its resources. Although the same statutory criteria apply to make the listing and delis ling determinations. the factual considerations for setting listing and dr-listing priorities are quite different. General rules cannot govern this complex mesh of priorities. However. it would generally be found that candidate species .facing immediate. critical threats should have priority for listing over competing deBating proposals under .consideration at the time. Likewise. 8 delisting proposal for a recovered species that would eliminate unwarranted restrictions on significant. identifiable activities may. in appropriate instances. take precedence Over listing proposals for species not facing severe, imminent threats. In deciding on which proposals will receive priority. the Service must examine the overall "mix" of potenliallistings snd delisting snd assess the relative priorities of the various proposals in light of that "mix." Of course. this assessment process will constantly change as new candidate species are brought to the Service's attention snd as listed species attain recovery or become extinct. EDF also recommended that term! used in the proposed system be more precisely defined and. in particular. recommended that the "degree of threat" criterion be quantified in a way that parallels the standards {or finding "jeopardy" under Section ,7 of the Act. The Service believes Ihatlhe circumstances applying to most species are individualistic enough as to be incapable of precise definition or quantiflcalion beyond the level, proposed. In particular, with regard to determinations of degree of threat, the parallel with considerations under Section 7 of the Act Beems faulty. Consultations under Section 7 address known and carefully identified actions that may affect the survival of a species. Degree~of.threat considerations for listing a species may address highly speculative future actions. or more frequently, documented decline of a species for poorly-known or unknown reasons. Such considerations often cannot be quantified, and an attempt to do so mighl only serve to make priority- . setting. rather than listing. the main activity of the program. 8S fesred by EDF (see above). The Service believes that it has access to sufficient biological expertise to permit the admittedly loose definitions of terms to be interpreted appropriately. EDF a.lso recommended that "degree" be replaced by "magnitude" under "Ihreat." The Service agrees thai the latter term is somewhat more precise. and has altered the final guidelines 'accordingly. EDf expressed concern that the "immediacy" criterion for threat not be applied so rigidly that Endangered species would always be listed in preference to Threatened species. which might be more recoverable. In general. the Service intends that species judged Endangered should be listed before those judged Threatened. Once again. it is worth noting that listing is an identification process and. other considerations being equal. should proceed on a "worst-first" basis. Nevertheless. the Service intends that species originally judged to be faced with immediate threats. but which prove not to face such immediate threats when sufficiently complete status information ia developed. may be listed nevertheless in order that current status infonnation need not be gathered again later on. EDF supported the concept of immediacy of threal 8S a useful addition to the priority system but observed that: Specifically, we are concerned that the immediacy of threat criterion may ultimately rely on and be distinguished by the availability of lIcienlific infonnation about such threats. Because such threats are nol .well-known, however. a dearth of information may preclude nece8sary.and expedilious aclion by the Service. We therefore suggest that the immediacy of threat criterion should be defIned and delimited by what are necessarily somewhat Bubjective best judgments about the expected temporal sequence and realization of . threat: not just the known or unknown .occurrance of such threats. We believe the Service recognizes this in Its altemplto distinguish two categories ("actual identifiable" versus "potential. intrinsically vulnerable") hut faUs shorl in that eHort by di9tinsuiahing "latent" from "potentia'" by the presence or absence of information available about such threats (e.g.. "known occurrence or lack of . . . ,"J. Her;e. to the maximum extent possible, judgment II about the immediacy of threat should be guided by how quickly the threat posed by any o.:e of the five statutory faclon may aHect those populations of a candidate specie. at risk. The Service believes thai such a recommendation. if adopted, would render the system unworkable. It could make priorities responsive to highly speculative but rapidly-realized threats such 8S earthquake or volcanic eruption. The Service prefers in setting priorities to rely on known or reasonably -. predictable threats to a species' survival and known vulnerability to reasonably probable future conditions. Because they believe that an threats are by definition potential. EDF recommends that"potential" be replaced by "non-imminent" in the system. Insomuch as a threat in this context is one or extinction. and is only . realized when a species is extinct. this is a point well taken by the Service. Tha : final system is altered accordingly. . .1 EDF also recommended that an "ecosystem" criterion be incorporaled into the system. similar to the "conDict" .. criterion in Table 3. This would ba ;;.;,;:,., intended to identify apa.ies of, acologlc .' ," ,.- .. ~ oLr" ;..--.... ., . :..:::;.? .~-,.::>:~"\ ._ .."':"'r.-~I . },f ......."I:'!'foo~.