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

0023S?! ' .
rederal Regis sr I Vol. 48, No. 184 I Wednesday. September 21, 1983 I Notices

43103

Tfl.BlE 1.-PRIORIl'lES FOR WST"'fG OR Re-
CLASSIFICATION FROM THREATENED TO EN-
DANGERED

Thr$ll --
r.."""""
'M1l9rulu08 Immod.cy .,
",- ................ rmminenl..... ...... Monotypc genus.. ,
Speoes.... .
SubsP'lCIM.__ ._ 3
Non-<mmlnenl ,,- MonolyplcgenUI. .
~'''''''-" .
Subapec:.n._._ . .
MOO'en1l810 Imminenl._.._ Monorypoc: genus... 7
,~,
Species___..__.... .
SUbspflaes......._.. .
NOn-immlllllnt.._ MonolyplC genus... 10
-..., .._....R.... "
s..--__" 12

Explanatia.,. In keeping wilh tlte'
recommendation of the General
Accounting Office (GAD) and the
Service's previous policy, the first
criterion would be magnitude of threat.
Species facing the greatest threats to
their continued existence would receive
highestlisling priority.
The second criterion. immediacy of
threat. is intended to assure that species
facing actual. identifiable. threats are
given priority over those for which
threats are only potential or that are
inlrinsically vulnerable to certain types
of threat but not known 10 be presenlly
(acing such threats.]n assigning a
species to a priority category under
immediacy of threat. the Service would
consider the known occurance or lack of
documented detriDlental trade or
harvest. habitat modification.
significantly detrimental disease or
predalion, and other present or potential
threats.
The third criterion is intended to
devote resources on a priority basis to
Ihose species representing highly
distinctive or isolated gene poo~. as
refiected by the taxonomic level at
which they are recognized. The more
isolated or distinctive a .gene pool. the
greater contribution its conservation is
likely to make lo the maintenance of
ecosystem diversity. This fInal criterion
implements the Act's stated concern for
ecosystem conservation by recognizing
the dislinctness denoted by assignment
of a species to a monotypic genus. a9
well as the relative distinctness denoted
by the recognition of a taxon at the level
of species or subspecies.
2. DeJisti.7g and Reclasslj'ication from
Endangered to Threalened- The Service
currently reviews listed specie! every 5
years in accordance with Section 4{c)(2)
of the Act to iJenlify any that might
qualify tor removal from the lists. or
reclassification. When species are
identified in the curse of these periodic
reviews as warranting deletion from the
lists or reclassification from Endangered

to Threatened. priority foJl'preparation
of regulations would be assigned
according 10 the system below (Table 2),
employing two cIiteria to yield six
calegories. II should be pointed oul thai
the priority numbers in Table 1 and 2
Bre not comparable.

TABLE 2.-PRIORrTIES FOR OEllSTrNG A.ND RE-
CLASSIFICATION FROM ENDANGERED TO
THAEA.TEMEO

...anaqemem Ltnpact

Petibon stBtus

H.gh..........._._.............._.... Petllicned aCtlOlL 1
\JnpW\lOned 1't1IDrI.. 2'
ModIrm........__.._...._... PetrtJorMId 1IC!ion._... 3
UnpebllQned action . ..
l.o.f' .........._..__..._.._.... Pell1lOl'led actJon._ 5
Unpebboned action.. e

Explanation. In considering species
for possible delisting or reclassification
from Endangered 10 Threatened. thi.
system is intended to focus on species
whose original classification has
become inappropriate due to changed
circumstances or new information.
Priority considerations would concern
whether or not maximum protection
under the Act is necessary any longer
and whether the listing causes an
unwarranted management burden or
unnecessarily restricts human activities.
The first consideration of the system
accounhl for the management burden
entailed by the species' being listed.
which. if the current listing is no longer
accurate. could divert resources from
species more deserving of conservation
eHorts.
Because the Act mandates timely
response to petitions. the system
secondly considers whether the Service
has been petitioned to remove a species
from either of the lists or to reclassify iI
from Endangered to Threatened. This
consideration is also intended to assign
highest priority to those species whose
delisting is likely to remove the greatest
impacts on human activities inasmuch
as such species would also be likely to
be subjects of petitions.
It is not intended that existence of a
pelition or identified management
impact with regard to a given species
would automatically direct or mandate
Bny particular decision regarding its
removal from the lists or its
reclassification. The priority system is
intended only to set priorities for the
development af rules for species that no
longer satisfy the listing criteria {or their
particular designation under the Act.
The decision regarding whether a
species will be retained on the lists orin
the Endangered category mu.t still be
based on the considerations contained
in Section 4(a)(I) of the Act and 50 eFR
424.11.

Pri-
...,

Recovery Plan Preparation and
Implementation Priorities. The
importance of recovery plans as guiding
documents for recovering species has
been recognized since 1912. when the
Service developed its first draft recovery
plan. Although tbe Service strongly
encouraged their development. and
some plans were developed. preparing a
recovery plan for a species was elective
until the 1978 Amendments to the Act
required the development of a recovery
plan for every listed Endangered and
Threatened species. e:xcept when the
Secretary determines that II. . .'8uch a
plan wHl not-promote the conservation
of the species."
Through fiscal year 1977. recovery
plan development was not based on any
established priority sy.tem. During .
fiscal year 1977, the Service developed a
draft recovery priority system to be used
as a guide for recovery planning and
resource allocation. The system
included three criteria-degree of threal.
recovery potential. Bnd taxonomic
status. arranged in a matrix of 12.
categories. The 1979 GAD report
'recommended that this draft recoveIY
priority system be approved and
implemenled.
The pr..ent system expands the
taxonomy criterion to include
Umonotypic genua." This would expand
the matrix to yield 18 species recovery
numbers (see Table 3). As d..cribed in
the preceding section on listing, this
additior; .~ intended to devote resources
on a pria:'ity basis to these species
representing'highly distinctive or
isolaled gene pools.
The previous system (as referenced in
the 1979 GAD reporl) was adopted in
1980 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1980). This syslem was subsequently
revised to give priority within Ule .
.existing matrix to taxonomic groups
(higher life fonns) as in the 1981 listing
priority system. Tha system presenlly
adopted deletes this preference for .., -!
higher life fonns and adds 8 new
criterion on conflict required by the 1982
Amendments.' .
In particular, the 1982 Amendments
specify that recovery plans shalI.to the
maximum extent practicable. give "-.
priority to those Endangered speciel or
Threatened species most like~y to
benefit from such plans. particularly
those species that are, or may be. in
confliel with construction or other
development projects or other ronns of
economic activity. The present system is
intended 10 satisfy the requirements of
the amended Act. 11 ulilizes 8
modification of the three-faclor system
oRginally adopled by the FWS in 1980 . ,
but includes a fourth factor. conflict. . _ '-

. "
.~::~

.P

~....-, ~ ,.l..