WSP03121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0D2925 "., ('. 43098 Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 184 I Wednesday, September 21. 1983 I Notices ( ( 4f qti- 13 Fish Bnd Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Species Usting and Recovery Priority Guidelines AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.s. Fish snd Wildlife Service has developed guidelines governing the assignment of priorities to ",species for listing as Endangered and Threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. ss amended (Act) and deveJopmenl and implementation of recovery plans for species that are listed under the Act. The guidelines aid in determining how to make the most appropriate use of resowces available to implement the Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: The guidelines are adopted a. of September 21. 1983. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John L Spinks. Jr.. Chief. Office of Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washinglon, D.C. 20240, (703{23:;"'2771). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General The Service recognizes that it is necessary 10 assign priori ties to listing. deJisling. reclassification. and recovery actions in order to make the mosl appropriate use of the limited resources available to implement the Act. The following priority systems are based on an analysis of such factors as degree and immediacy of threat faced by a species. needs for furhter information. and species' recovery potentials. Inasmuch as such assessments are subjective to some degree. and individual species may not be komparable in terms of all (considerations. the priority systems . presented must be viewed 85 guides and should not be looked upon as inflexible frameworks for detennining resource I allocations. Draft guidelines were published on April 19, 1983(49 FR 16756). These final guidelines are based I on lba t draft. . . Summary of Comments Bod R.ecommendations 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 Disl:rict): Pacific Legl::ll Foundation; Western. Timber Association: and Wildlife Legislative fund of America. Three of the comments expressed general support for the guidelines as proposed. without offering any recommendations for change. Substantive recommendations are addressed below: Comments on Listing. Delisting. 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 oJ. (CEE) recommended that the Service emphasize listing of qualified species over delisting of species no longer in need of protection. and also stated that delisting should be undertaken only for species with no present need for protection and unlikely to need such protection in the future. The Service agrees in principal with this comment. 11 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. CEE also expressed concern that consideration of degree and immediacy of threat be tempered by a consideration of benefit from listing and availability of information. They favored subsuming immediacy within deBree of threat and adding the other two considerations as "pragmatic" criteria in the system. The Service continues to believe that separate consideration of immediacy is warranted in order to help ensure that the system is most effective in #-.. '0;..-. ~ ,~. -~