WSP03121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'-~:' '. O~2928 Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 184 I Wednesday, September 21, 1983 I Nolices 43101 r ( Importance and to accommodate the provision of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee's report on the 1982 amendmenta to the Act: Biologically it makea aenae to treat all taxonomic groups equaUy or even to place aome apeetal emphBlia on protecting plante and invertebrates since they form the bases of ecosyslems and food chains upon which all other liCe depends. S. Rep, No. 418. 97th Cong., 2d Sesa. 14 (1982), The Service fully appreciate. the importance of species that are - ecologically aignifican~ and intends to give this importance due consideration in determining listing goals, but does not consider this an appropriate element in the lis ling priority sy.tem. This kind of information is seldom available at the time a species is considered for listing and. if included. would only raise it in priority above speCies that were equal in all other respects under the system. In addition. the Service believes that all species are of some importance to ecosystems. so that a simple "yes-or.no" decision would rarely be possible. Thus. n appears most renonable to consider "ecosystem importance" on an ad hoc basis outside the forma) priority system. when lluch importance is identifiable. EDF also requests clarification of the conRideration to be given vertebrate populations under the priority system. As explained above in reply to 8 llimilar enquiry from ESA, the Service intends that vertebrate popuJations generally be accorded the 81lme consideration as that given subspecies. Finally. EDF suggests that llpecies may be idenlified for deli sting or reclassification from Endangered to Threatened by virtue of their having met objectives for such action in recovery plans. The Service certainly intends to consider identified recovery goals in planning delistings or reclassifications. but will assign priority for such actions according to the criteria in Table 2. The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) supported development of priority guidelines. expressing the opinion that the Endangered Species Act" ill ... ... has been misused by Borne as a vehicle by which major construction projects and reasonable development of our natural resources have been delayed or stopped." The Service agrees that guidelines are desirable 8S a method of helping to ensure appropriate use of resources. The Service has always attempted to proceed on the basis of the best scientific knowledge available in implementing the Act, whether through the listing or recovery of Endangered and Threatened species. PLF also recommends that all listing. delisting. or l reclassification actiOns be undertakenln strict compliance with the guidelines and that, for every species that Is listed, reclassified, or delisted, a discussion of each of the criteria in the relevant priority system table should be supplied, The Service. 8S bas been mentioned above, does not view lbe priority systems 8S dictating actions so much 81 providing flexible guides in msking ralional decisions. In lbis light, It Is counterproductive to explain bow each action fits the priority system so long as apecies subject to the actions qualify under the condi tions of the Act. PLF also expressed the opinion that is redundant to consider bolb "degree" and "Immediacy" of threa~ As has been explained above. the Service continues to believe that lbe distinction Is a useful one. Finally, PLF requested a clarification to indicate that, .. ... ill ... no protection Is afforded individual gene paolo below the taxonomical level of subspecies." The Service notes that. in the case of vertebrate animals the Act specifically provides for the listing of populations. The recommendation of PLF in this instance would thus contradict the Act. As explained above, lb. Service intend. to generally assign vertebrate populations the same priority of consideration as that afforded subspecies. Comments on recovery priorities. Several of the comments on the recovery priority system are conveniently categorized and addressed topically below: 1. Taxonomy. Some concern (two comments) was expressed concerning the use of taxo'nomic uniqueness as a criterion for determining recovery priority, This issue has been addressed in the above section for Jisting priority. . In one comment. it was recommended that a better measure than taxonomy would be the speciea' ecological significance. For this purpose. B species with "high" ecological significance would be ana for which recovery measures would likely benefit the conservation of the listed or candidate species 88 well. It was recommended that Ecological Significance should substitute for Taxonomy in Table 3. To the extent po.sible, the Service has adhered to this philosophy of . considering ecosystems in its recovery plans, This is evident by the following recovery plans (includes both draft and approved plans) which utilize an ecosystem or multi.species approach: Antioch Dunes (three species), Eureka Valley Dune. (two species), Hawaiian Forest Birds (four species). Hawaiian Sea Birds (four species). Hawaiian Waler Birds (three species), Kauai Forest Birds (six species). San Bruno Mountoin (two species). San Clemente Island (seven species). NW Hawaiian Islands Passerine Birds (three species), and the San Marcos River Endangered and Threatened species (four species]. [technical review draft stage), Because ecosystems are already considered and it is difficult to quantify "Ecosystem Significance," the Service elects not to substitute Ecosystem Significance for Taxonomy in Table 3. 2. Recovery potential and associated costs of recovery. Two comments expressed concerns about the recovery . potential of a species and an efficient investment of resources. The Service is in' agreement with the concerns expressed and will expand the narrative of the guidelinell to accommodate this concern. Priority will be given to those species and projects that offer the greatest potential for success. The recovery potential of a species will be detennined by consideration of the following criteria: HiQtl reccw..-y potwItiaI l.(IIfIr~pOt.m.ar _ond_ IItnitInQ:lIoctora. . TlYuts 10 apec:.a. ais1. _. .....N1gement nMded '_.__.. W"~.._._._____h__."_'" POOfI';'undllrwloocL WIU urDr8&c!od MSIIy alleWiMd ._.........._.._ .. POOfty undnlood 01 ~ an:! tMflCUl!. 10 alllMal. 1n~~not~arfKl'l- Intensr.o.rnal"II~lwlthunoertaln~ ~...ldoc:u'MrMdwiltthighprol)&blllty It)'oII1UClCnLOI~~Of.bll oflUOCftll. ~taI, I WI'MIn pouibIl and bl0i0gicaiiy lepbill, clIta ~ 10 1M recuvery 01 I pwtICu..... tuon twill _ iDtrapolII~ frOO'rl kl"lOWT'l KOIogical rlMJlirlmentl Of managemonllKhr.quls for ClOsety rllatl<l t&>cL Regardless of this recovery potential. the Service will strive to undertake for every high threal species those minimum survival efforts which will allea.t stabilize its status and prevent its extinction. Once 8uch "emergency" measures have been taken. further recovery work designed to eventually lead to delisting of the .pecies will be evaluated according to the recovery pOlential described above. Several specific comments are addres.ed below: Chevron expressed B desire to have greater public involvement in the preparation of recovery plans. This has been done to a limited degree in the past for those plan,s where a conflict, or . ;;~ '.~. ".