WSP10384 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002361 . . 43102 Federal Register 1 Vol. 48. No. 184 / Wednesday, September 21, 1983 / Noltces' potential conflict. haa been known to exist. e.g.. Northern Rocky Mountain . wolf. San "Bruno Mountain. San Marcos River Endangered and Threatened species. and the small whorled p08onia. The Service will continue to invite public participation for those species where conflicts or controversies are known to exist. PLF slated that it is.unclear"fin Table 3) if there is any differing treatment_ between Endangered and Threatened species. The distinction between Endangered and Threatened species Occurs in the Degree of Threat criterion. It is generally understood that the Degree of Threat is greater for Endangered species lhan for Threatened species. PLF also suggested that an additional column be added to Table 3 that would give greater priority in the preparation of recovery plans to those.species which are Endangered throughout all their range over those species that are Endangered throughout 8 portion of their range. Although it is not specifically stated" this concern is reflected in the first criterion (Degree of Threat) of Table 3. A species which is Endangered throughout its range would be listed higher on the degree of threa t scale tban would be a species Endangered throughout a portion of its range. In reality. most species which are listed are Endangered throughout their ranges. Even though it is legally acceptable to list populations of verlebrates. this practice represents the exception rather than the rule. ESA recommended that for listing and recovery eHorts. populations and named subspecies should have the S3me priority. since the possession of a name is often based more on tradition than on any meaningful measure of distinctiveness. This issue is addressed in the above Listing Seclion. In addition. the abo,,'e reply to a comment from PLF indicates that priority be given to species which are Endangered throughout all their range rather than just to a populalion. Populalions will be addressed when there is sufficient justification. but this is the exception rather than the rule. EDF expressed the hope thai the Service will devote most of its resources to implementing listing and recovery planning efforts and not 10 prioritizing such tasks. The listing portion of this concern is addressed in the earlier section of this article. The Sen-ice is mandated by the Endangered Species Act. as amended, to the pre para tion of recovery plans gh'ing priority to those species most likely to benefit from such -plans. In doing so, the Service will also .focus on those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity. The proposed guidelines are intended to provide a means to identify. and rank. those species most likely to benefit from such plans. It is also necessary.that the limited resources for.the implementing of recovery actions be allocated in the most judicious fashion possible. This can only be possible by having a sound system for ranking proposed recovery actions. EDF commented that it remains unclear specifically how the three priority models (Tables 1, 2, and 3) relate to one another. Table 3. Recovery Priority, is independent of Tables 1 and Z. It is to be expected that many species would have a similar ranking when evaluated by Tables 1 and 3. However. differences between species. or recovery potential could reduce these similarities of ranking. This concern is also . addressed under listing comments, above. EDF also tound the tasks priority- recovery priority system somewhat confusing. They agreed that the Service's limited resources should be distributed equitably to aU listed species. but were not sure specifically how this will be accomplished. They requested clarification of this situation. They commented that. "presumably recovery plans for &iJecies facing the highest degree of threat will designate more priority 1 tasks thai! lhose plans for species jeopardized by a lower degree of threat." . Generally, plans for species facing the highest degree of threat will designste more Priority 1 tasks than lhose plans for species jeopardized by a lower degree of threat However. exceptions may occur. For example. a highly-. Threatened isolated desert fish may'be in imminent danger from sil\alion associated wilh adjacent cattle grazing. Possibly only one task. Le.. fencing, would warrant a Priority 1 designation. .Furthermore. as indicated in the earlier summary of comments on recovery potential and aS50ciated costs re~ardless of the recovery potenlial.lhe Service will strive 10 undertake for every high. threat species those mininlUffi survival efforts which will at least stabilize its status and prevent its extinction. Once such "emergency", measures have been taken. further recovery work designed to eventualy lead to delisting of species will be evaluated according to the recovery potential described above. To ensure consistency in the utilization of the recovery priority system. all draft recovery plans will be reviewed by the same office at the Washington level. . Additionally, all funding proposals for implementation of recovery actions will also be reviewed by tbe same office at the Washington level. ,,'. Priorily Guldelines Listing, De.listing, and Reclassification Priorities. In the past. the Service has informally assigned priorities for Hsting species as ~ . Endangered or Threatened on the basis of several different systems. In 1979. a report to Congress {General Accounting Office, 1979) recommended that the Service officially adopt a listing priority system based primarily on consideration of the degree of threat faced by a species. Following this report. the 1979 Amendments to the Endangered Species Act [Pub. L. 91>-159.93 Stat. 1241) required that guidelines be established and published in'the Federal Register. induding u. . ... B ranking system to assist in the identification of species that .should receive priority review.for listing . .. ~." Such a system was . ,. adopted (U.5.,Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980). but not published in the Fedarel Registor. This system was subsequenUy revised (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981)so that 'priority for listing would b. assigned within a.given category of Degree 01 threat BO BS to generally lavor vertebrate animals ('.higher life forms") in the following order: mammal.. hirds. fishes, reptiles. amphibians. vascular plants. invertebrates. The 1982 Amendments to the Endangered,Species Act (Pub. L. 97-3(4) retained the requirement that guidelines be published. However. the amendmenla and the accompanying Conference Report necessitated revision or the 1981 system. Specifically. the amended Act requires that the priority system addresa delis ling as well as listing of species and the Conference Report stated opposition to the adoption of any syslem that would give consideration to whether . species were "higher or lower life forms." The present system is intended to satisfy the requirements of the amended Act. . . ~:.~- 1. Listing and reclasslficatian from Threo/ened /0 Endongered, In considering species to be listed or reclassified from Threatened to Endangered. three criteria -would be applied to estahlish 12 priority . . i'.',:,. categories as follows [Table 1): ,::n:..,-.;. ..... " '., . . .r . ..... .. , .'. . . :~. ~. I ., " ,.