WSP03121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002923 .., 43102 !Federal Register '1 Vol. 1\8, 'No, '184 1 Wednesday, September 21, "1983 I Notices c potential conflict..hBB'been knownto exist,.e-@..NorthemRocky'Mountain wolf. San 'Bruno Mountain,'San,MBrcoB River Endangered and Threatened specie" and the small ,whorled 1'Olloni., The Service wiD .contiIwejo:invile public participation "fnr1hme'species where .conflicts Of. controversies are known Jo exisl PLF stared thant is'unclear'(in !l'able 3) if there is any differingtr.alment between End.ngered aM ThrBatened species. The distinction between Endangered and Threatened specieB occurs in the Degree of Threat criterion. It ia generally undemtood.that the Degree of Threat is greaterJor Endangered species than for Threatened species. PLF alao suggeated that an additional column be added to Table 3 that would give greater priority in the preparation of recovery plans to those species which are Endangered throughout all thair range over those species that are Endangered throughout 8 portion of their range. Although it is not speciricaUy stated" this concern is reflected in the first criterion [Degree of Threat) of Table 3, A apecies whicb ia Endangered Ihroughout its range would be liated -. higher on the degree of threalacaJe1han would be a species Endangered throughout a portion of its range. In reality. most species which are listed are Endangered throughout lheir ranges. Even though il ia legally acceptable to list populations of vertebrates. this practice represenls the exception rather than the rule. ESA recommended that for listing and reGo\."ery efforts, populations and named subspecies should have the 63me priority. since the pOtlsession of a name is of/en based more on tradition !.han on any meaningful measure of distinctiveness. This issue is addressed in the abo.ve Listing Section. In addition. the above reply to a comment from PLF indicates that priority be given to species which are.Endangered throughout alllheir range ra ther than just to a population. Populations will be addressed when there is sufficient justification. but this is the exception rather than the rule. EOF expressed lhe hope that the Service will devote most of its resources to implementing listing and recO-very planning efforts and not to prioritizing such tasks. The listing portion of this concern is addressed in the .earlier section of this article. The Service is mandated by the Endangered Species Act. 8S amended, to the preparation of recovery plans giving priority to those ~pecies most likely to benefit from such 'P1""s, 'In doing SQ, .the Service will also focus on .thwe species that are. or may be.'in connict with.c.onstructicD or other development project a or other forma of economic activity. The proposed guidelines,are.intended to proVide a means to identify. .and rank, .those apecies most likely to'benefitlrom auch plans, It is also nacessary that the limited tesources lor ,lhe implementing of .recovery aclions be allocated in the most judicious IasruoD pOBsjbJe. Tbjs can 'only'be possible by having a aound system for ranking proposed recovery actions. "EDF commented that it remains unclaar specifically bow the three prinrity models (Tables 1, 2, and 3) relate to one another. Table 3, Recovery Priority, ia independent of Tables 1 and 2.11 is to be expected that many species would have a similar,ranking when evaluated by Tablea 1 and 3, However, differences between species. or recovery potential could reduce these similarities of ranking. This concern is also addressed under listing comments. above. EDF alao found the laaks priority- recovery priority system somewhat confusing, They.agreed that the Service's limited resources shouJd be distributed equitably to all listed species, but were not sure specifically how this will be accomplished- They requested clarification of this situation. They commented that, "presumably recovery plans for species facing the high eat degree of threat will designate more priority 1 tasks than those plans for species.jeopardized by a lower degree of threaL" . Generally, plans .for species facing the . higheat degree of threat will designate more Priority 1 tasks than those plans for species jeopardized by a Jower degree of threat However, exceptions may occur. For example, 8 highly-. Threatened isolated desert fish may be in imminent danger from siltation associated with adjacent cattle grazing. Possibly only- one task. i.e.. fencing, would warrant a Priority 1 designation. .Furthermore, 88 indicated in the earlier Bummary of comments on recovery potential Bnd associated costs resardless of the recovery potential. the Service will strive to undertake for every high-threat species those minimum survival efforts which will at least stabilize its status and prevent Its extinction. Once such "emer8ency'~ measures have been taken, further recovery work designed to evenlualy lead to delisting of species will be evaluated according to the recovery potential described above. To ensure consistency in the utilization of the recovery ,priority system. aU draft recovery plans will be reviewed by the same office al.the Washinglnn level, . Additionally, all funding proposals for implementation of recovery actions will also be reViewed by the same office at the Washing Ion level. Priority Guidelinea Listing. Delisting. and Reclassification Priorities. In the ,past. the Service has informally assigned priorities for listing species a8.. . Endangered or Threatened on the basis of several different systems. In 1979. a report to Congress (General Accounting Office, 1979) recommended that the Service officially adopt a listing priority system based primarily on consideration of the degree of threat faced by a species.. Following this report, the 1979 Amendments to the Endangered Species Act'(Pub.1. 96-159, 93 Stat, 1241) required thatguidelinea be establisbed and publiahea in the Fedars! Regiater, including". . .. a ranking system to assist in the identification of species that should receive priority review for listing . .. ~." Such 8 system WBS r adopted (U's,.Fish and Wildlife Service'-_ 1980), but not publiahed in the Fedaral Register. This system was subsequently revised [U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981) so that priority for liating would ba assigned within B siven category of Degree of threat so as to generally favor vertebra Ie animals ("higher life fonna") in the following order: mammals. birds, fishes, reptiles, amphibians, vascular plants. invertebrate!. The 1982 Amendments to the Endangered Species Act [Pub, I. 97--304) retained the requirement that guidelines be published. However, the amendments and the accompanying Conference Report necessitated revision of the 1981 system. Specifically, the amended Act requires that the priorily system address deli sting as well as listing of species and the Conference Report stated opposition to the adoption of any system that would give consideration to whether species were "higher or lower life forms." The present system i! intended to satisfy (he requirements of the amended Act. 1. Listing and reclassification from Threotened 10 Endongered, In consirle.ring species to be listed or reclassified from Threatened to Endangered. three criteria .would be applied to establish 12 priority categories aa followa (Table 1): <. " .... .....-...-.'..---~.. '->00. :~":;'...-. ,. --.,.:....,.