WSP03121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJ2927 43100 Federal Register 1 Vol. 48. No. 184 I Wednesday. September 21, 1983 I Notices (' discretion to BSSign appropriate priorities to highly distinct and genetically isolated organisms whether or not they constitute manotypic genera. Finally. ESA raquested a clarification of the applicability of the proposed system to unnamed populalions. The Acl 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 iOlends to generally afford vertebrate populations the sante 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) expr.ssed concern that too much time might be devoted to setting of species priorities, and lhat this might detract from actual implementing of listing tasks. The Service agrees that no mare time than is necessary should be devoted to the -assigning of priorities. Because of this consideration. the Service has deliberately attempted to Co~mulate B system that is simple and .that assigns species priorities in a straightCorward manner without the need for complex analysis. EDF also expressed concern over the interrelationship of the three systems contained In Tabl.s1.. 2.. and 3. As explained below in the sumrnary of comments on the recovery priority syst.m. Tables 1. and 2. ar.largely independent oC Table 3. Fur.ther..it is not possible. in the opinion oC the Service. to Cannulate a direct relationship between the sY.9tems in Tables 1. and 2. As is explained in the narrative portion of the guidelines. it is antictp8ted that the need to delist species or reclassify them from Enda.ngered to Threatened will be id.ntified largelY- t1iro"ugh mandated 5- year reviews or through petitions. Once such actions have been idenlified and a5signed priorities. they will be considered for possible action within the Service's annual planning prOcess. ""Establishing specific criteria for ranking the priorities of listing proposals versus delisting proposals would take away the flexibility n..d.d by th. Service to efficiently apportion its resources. Although the same statutory criteria apply to make the listing and delisting determinations. the factual considerations for setting listing and delisling priorities are quite different. General rules cannot govern this complex mesh of priorities. However, it would gen.rally be found that candidste Jlpecies facing immediate. critical threats should have priority for listing over competing delisting proposals under consideration at the time. Likewise. 8 delioting proposal for a recover.d species that would eliminate unwarranted restrictions OD significant, identifiable activities may. in appropriate instances. take precedence Dvedisting proposals for species not facing severe. imminent threats. In deciding on which proposals will receive priority. the Service must examine the overall '"mix" of potentialliatings and delisting and assess the relative priorities of the various proposals in light of that "mix." Of course. this B'Bse!!sment process will constantly change as new candidate species are brought to the Service's attention and 89 listed species attain recovery or become extinct. EDF also recommended that terms used in the proposed system be more preCisely aefined and, in particular. recomm.nded thatth. "degree of threat" criterion be quanlified in a way that psralle!s"the otandards for finding "j.opardy" und.r Section 7 of the Act. The Sendee believes that the circumstances applying to most species are individualistic enough as to be incapable of precise definition or quantification b.yond the level . proposed. In particular. with regard to determinations oC degree of threat. the parallel with consideralions under Section 7 of tb. Act s.ems faulty. Consultalions under Section 7 address known and carefully identified actions that may affect the survival of 8 species. Degree-of-threat considerations for listing a species may sdd,..s highly speculative future actions. or more frequently, docum.nt.d d.cline of s species for poorly-known or unknown reasons. Such considerations often cannot be Quantified. and an attempt to do so might only serve to make priority- setting. rather than listing. the main activity of the program. as feared by EDF (see above). The Service b.lieves that it has access to sufficient biological expertise to penn it the admittedly loose definitions of tenns to be interpreted appropriat.ly. EDF also r.comm.nded thst ..degr.... be r.placed by "msgnilud." und.r "threat." The Service agrees that the latter term is somewhat mare precise. and has altered the fins! guidelines . accordingly. EDF expressed concern that the "immediacy" criterion for threat not be applied so rigidly that Endangered species would always be listed in preCerence to Threatened species. which might be more recoverable. In general. the Service intends thst sp.cies judg.d - Endangered ohould be listed b.for. those judsed Threatened. Once Bgsin. 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 opecies originally judged to b. fsced with immediate threats. but which prove not to face such immediate threats when sufficiently complete status infonnation is 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 threat 8S 8 useful addition to th. priorily system but obs.rved that: Specifically. we are concerned that the immediacy of threat criterion may ultimalely rely on and be distinguished by the availability of scientific infonnation about such Ihreats. Because such threats are nol well.known. however. a dear1h of information may preclude necessary.and expedltiouJl aclion by the Service. We therefore 8uggesllhat the immediacy of threat criterion Jlhould be defined and delimited by what are necessarily somewhat .ubjective best judgments about the expected temporsl sequence and realization of a threat; not just the known or unknown .occu.nance of Jluch threatJl. We believe the ( Service recognizeJllhi. in lis attempt to disUnguish two categories ("aclual . identifiable" versus "potential. mlrinsically vulnerable") but falls short in that errorl by distinguishing "latent"' from "potential" by the presence or absence of information available about such threats (e.g.. "known occurrence or lack of . . . ."). Hence. to the maximum extent possible. judgments about the immediacy of threat should be guided by bow quickly the threat posed by Bny one of the five statutory facton may arfect those populations of 8 candidate species al rillk. The Service believes that such a recommendation, if adopted. would render the system unworkable. It could make priorities responsive to highly speculative but rapidly-realized threats 8uch as earthquake or volcanic eruption. The Service prefers in selling priorities to rely on known or reasonably predictable threats to a species' survival and known vulnerability to reasonably probable future conditions. Becaus. th.y b.liev. that alllhreats 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 of extinction. and is only realized when a species is extinct, this is s point well taken by the S.rvice. Th. final system is altered accordingly. . EDF slso r.commended thst sn "- "ecosystem" criterion be incorporated into the system. similar to the "conflict" criterion in Table 3. This would be . intended to identify species o~ ecologic ....., ....,-.-'-..