WSP03121

• File Number: 8065
• Description: Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 9/21/1983
• Author: Federal Register
• Title: Federal Register - DOI-FWS - Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

Oll2926

Federal Register I Vo\. 48, No. 184 I Wednesday', September 21, 1983 I Notices

43099

{;,

(

forestalling imminent extinctions.
AlthouSh, as noted by CEE, this may
result in listing resources being devoted
to species whose recovery would be
difficult and cosily. such considerations
are addressed in the recovery priority
system, where recovery potential is
expressly considered. Inasmuch as
listing is an identification process. it
appears to be mosl appropriate to
proceed on 8 "worst.first" basis and list
those species in greatest immediate
danger of extinction first. Inclusion of 8
"benefit from listing" criterion would
not. in the opinion of the Service.
impro"'e the priority. system. The Service
believes thai all listed species derive
some benefit from their identification as
Endangered or Threa tened. The
magnitude of such benefits. however,
are oflen largely unpredictable at the
time of listing and would be difficult to
quantify within the framework of a
simple. workable priority system. The
Service also rejects the inclusion of an
"availability of information" criterion in
the priority system because this seems
unnecessary. AvailabiJity of information
adequate to detennine a species' status
is necessary before any assessment of
the appropriateness of listing can be
addressed. To this extent, availability of
information is implicit in any priority
system that might be adopted. and its
statement as an explicit crilerion adds
linle. if anything. to the effectiveness of
the system. CEE also expresses concern
that. if information were to become
available on a groap of species in a
particular area indicating lhat some
were eligible for listing 8S Endangered
and others as Threatened, the proposed
system might preclude listing of alIthe
eligible species in the area. The Service
belie...es that it retains sufficient
flexjbility under the proposed system to
proceed with listinss of all the
appropriate species in such a situation
when this would increase the overall
efficiency of the listing process by
avoiding duplicative regulations. It
should be recognized that the sellins of
listing priorities is an intermittent, rather
than continuous. activity. and that
" infonnation developed on a species
believed to have a high priority may
indicate that a lower priority is justified.
bul that this situation would not
necessarily preclude its being listed
while the status informalion was
available and current. CEE further takes
issue with the proposed system's
"taxonomy" criterion. stating:

It may be true that certain monotypic
genera of plants luch as the three redwoudll
thai dominate particular ecosYBtems make an
important and irreplaceable contribution to
maintenance or the diversity of those
ecosystems. but it doesn't follow thai

l

lubspecies of coyote bush are any more
interchangeable or less tmportantin
chapsrral ecosystems. An ecological
preference for preserving monotypic genera
of animals makes even less sense. It appears
thai the California condor, a m.onotypic
genua. may have leiS ecosystem impact that
any of leversl butterfly subspecies.

The Service believes that the CEE
comment confounds two different
concepts. Taxonomy is included in the
proposed system as a crude reflection of
genetic distinctness in an attempt to
provide for the preservation of
maximum genetic diversity in
ecosystems. Genetic distinctness of a
taxon, however, may have little bearing
on the importance of lhe. taxon's impact
on the functioning of the ecosystem to
which it belonss. Judging a taxon's
functional contribution to its ecosystem
is generally much more difficult and
does not lend itself to the framework of
a simple priority system. The.Service
recognizes that there Bre aspects of
species' biology. such as this one, lhat
are not appropriately incorporated
within the listing priority system. and it
is for this reason that the system is not
designed to be used in B rigid fashion.
The Service has attempted to use the
system flexibly so that important
biological considerations that fall
outside the scope of consideration of the
system can figure into particular
decisions on an ad hoc basis.
The CEE comment further disputes the
appropriateness of giving consideration
to monotypic genera in setting lis ling
priorities. citing the large number of
monotypic genera of hummingbirds and
the apparent lack of accompanying
genetic diversity in the group. The
Service recognizes that the
consideration given mono typic genera is
only an approximate measure of genetic
distinctness and that taxonomic
concepts and standards vary among
different groups of organisms.
Nevertheless, if used with proper
understanding of this lack of taxonomic
unifonnity. the criterion appears to be
useful and is retained in the priority
system. In practical tenns. the Service
expects to only rarely have need for lhe
priority categories reflecting monotypic
genera. because there are relatively few
8uch taxa among the candidate species
now recognized. but believea that such
taxa generally reflect 8 level of genetic
distinctiveness worth noting in the
aystem. Il should also be recosnized that
the system only sets relative priorities
and that this is the lowest order of
priority-setting, so that a species would
at most move up one level in priority by
virtue of its representing a mono typic
genus, and species not representins
monolypic genera would only rank

below monotypic genera facing equally
serious and immediate threats.
Finally. the CEE comment cites the
1982 Senate Committee Report on
amendments to the Endangered Species
Act and its sta ted preference only for
listing species beCore subspecies and
subspecies before populations as
justification for deleting consideration
for monotypic genera. CEE noles that
the importance attached to monotypic
genera in the proposed system appears
to imply a value of species not provided
for in Section 2 of the Act, which refers
to "esthetic. ecological, educational.
historical, recreational. and scientific"
values of species. The Service believes
thai the Act's provision that species are
of educational and scientific value morel
than adequately justifies the modest
consideration proposed to be given
mono typic genera, which may represent
highly distinct sene-pools deservins of
continuing scientific and educational
attention.

The Ecological Society of America
(ESA) expres.ed general support for the
proposed system, but made several
recommendations for changes. ESA
recommended that greater emphasis be
placed on listing candidate species than.
on deli sting species no longer in need of
protection. noting that lhe possibility of
removing a species from the list is
always open, whereas extinction may
foreclose the option of listing some
species. The Service agrees in principal
with this comment. as explained below
in response 10 8 similar comment from
lhe Environmental Defense Fund,
ESA also observed lhat the average
number of species per genus is generally
lower among higher organisms. e.g..
mammals and birds, than among various
invertebrate groups and plants, because
of differing taxonomic concepts and
standards. They expressed concern that
the consideration afforded mono typic
genera in the proposed system could
thus work to favor vertebrate species as
in the former system thal was expres~ly
rejected by Congress. The Service
belie.ves Ih.at the benefit of affording
~onslderahon to taxonomic distinctness,
If the ~onsideration is applied flexibly
and with. due appreciation of differing
t~xonomlc ~tandar.ds. outweighs any
b,as that mIght be Introduced into the
priority-setting process.
In a related observation. ESA pointed
out that there are highly distinct
organisms that are nevertheless not
placed in, mo~ot~pic genera. and that lhe
taxonomic cnterla contained in the
system are i~flexible. The Service. as
has b.een pOInted out previously. does
not view any facet of the system as
Inflexible, and will reserve the

k .'(.:1..,.-.'....- ..'..
.:". ~-.-.

....'_ '':\:..!.::-::z.",;:;.';
.---:..'. ..'--,'-'-"" ". ~"".-'