WSP03121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0029~1 Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 184 I Wednesday, September 21, 1983 r Notices 43103 (' TABLE 1.-PRICJAITIES FQR lIST-ING OR Re.- ClASsIFICATJON FROM THAEAT~ TO E... DANGEBEI) n..., "",,. M_ -- T_ .... "9>..---__.,.... I~I._......... UClr1Of)PCgIIl'lUS... 1 Spoa. .....-........-. . "'--.- . Non-immlMl'l1,._ NonotypIC ~... . -......-... . Sib..-a-..__._ . MocIet..1O 1mmInen1._.._ -...... . ..... ---- . ",-...-- . NOl"';',,,,';'_.I.._ Monorypc-gerus... 10 Spoa.....,-..-:... " ",---.. 12 ( E;rplonotioR, In keeping with lhe recommenda tion of the General Accounting Office (GAOl and the Service's previous policy, the first criterion would be magnitude of threat. Species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence would receive highesllisting priority. . The lecond criterion, immediacy or threat. is intended to assure that species facing actuaL identifiable. threats are given priority over those for which threats are onty potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types 01 Ihreal but nol known 10 be presently facing such threats. In alSigning 8 species lo a priority category mlder immediacy Of threat., the Service would con9ider the known occurance or lack of . documented detrimental trade or harvest. habitat modification. significantly detrimental disease OJ' predation. and other present or potential threats. The third criterion is intended to devote resources on a priority basis to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated gene pools. as reflected by the taxonomic level at which they are recogniz~. The more il:.olated or distinctive a gene pool. the greater contribution its conservation is likely to make to the maintenance of ecosystem diversity. This final criterion implements the Act's stated concern for ecosystem conservation by recognizinS the dislinclne:!ls denoted by 858ignment of a species to a monotypic genua. 8S well as the relative distinctne!s denoted by Ihe recognition of a laxOll allbe level of species or subspecies. 2, Delisting and Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened- The Service currently reviews 1i8ted species every 5 years in accordance with Section 4(cX2) 01 Ihe Ac1ID identily any thaI might qualily tor removal from the Iiots. or reclassHication. When species are identified in the curse of these periodic reviews as warranting deletion from the lists or reclassification from Endangered L to Threatened, priority foJOpreparalion . of regulations would be assigned according to the IYBlem below (Table 2), employing two criteria 10 yield oix ca legones, IllhoMld be poi"le" 0111 thai the priority numbers in Table 1 and 2 are not comparable. TABLE 2.-PRIORITIES FOR DElISTING AND RE- CLASSIFICATION FROM ENDANGERED TO THREATEWED "'IMgemIn1lf1'\P&ct . -...... High......_.h~................._.... PetitIonlIdac:tlon._._.. , "'.,.....1:1........... ecWon t ..........__..______.._... Pwt/tJoned ectoo_ , UnpelitJof'8d KtIOfl.......... 4 Low..........._...._.._.__..._... PetrtJOned acUon._......_.......... 5 Ullpllblloned KGOn......~._.. e Explanation. In considering species for possible deHsting or reclassification from Endangered to Threatened. this system is intended to focus aD species wflose original classification has . become inappropriale due to changed circumstances or new information. Priority considerations would concern wbelher or not maximum protection under the Act is necessary any longer and whether the listing causes an unwarranted management burden ar unnecessarily restricts human acti.,.ities. The first consideration of the system accounts far the management burden eD.tailed by the species' being listed. which, if the current listing il 00 longer accurate, could divert resources from species more deserving of conservation efforts, Because the Act mandates timely response to petitions. the system secondly considers whether the Service has been petitioned to remove a species from either of Ibe lis Is or to reclalsify it from Endangered 10 Threatened. This consideration i. also intended to assign highest priority to those species whose delisting illikely 10 remove the greltesl impacts on human activities inasmuch as such speciel would also be likely to be lubjecll 01 petitions, It is DOt intended that existence of a petition or identified management impact with regard to 8 given species wouJd automatically direct or mandate any particular decision regarding its removal from the lists or its reclassification. The priority system is intended only to set priorities for the development of rules for species that no longer satisfy the listing criteria for their particular designation under the Act. The decision regarding whether a species will be retained on the liBts or in Ihe Endangered calegory musl still be based on the considerations contained in Section 4(a)(1) of the Acl and 50 CFR 424.11. Pn- """ Recorery Plan Preparation and [mplementation Priorities. The importance of recovery plans 81 guiding document. for recovering species has been recogni.ed lince 1972, when lhe Service developed il. first drall recovery plan. A1thougb the Service slrongly encouraged their development. and Borne plans were developed. prepsring 8 recovery. plan for 8 species was elective until the 1978 Amendments to the Acl required the deveropment of 8 recovery plan far every Iisled Endangered and Threatened species. except when the Secretary detennines that ". . *.such B plan will not promote the conservation of the species," Through fiscal year 1977. recovery plan development was not based on any eSlablished priority system. During fiscal year 1977. the Service developed a draft recovery priority system to be used 88 a guide for recovery planning and resource allocation. The system included three crileria-degree 01 threa~ recovery potential, and taxonomic stab.1s. arranged in 8 matrix of 12 calegories, The 1979 GAD report recommended that this draft recovery priority syslem be approved end implemented. The present system expends the taxonomy criterion to include "monotypic genus," This would expand the matrix to yield 18 species recovery numbers (see Table 3). As described in the preceding section on listing, this addition is intended to devote resources on a priority basis to these species representing highly distinctive or 'sola led gene pools, The previous system (as referenced in the 1979 GAD reporl) was adopted in 1980 [U,S, Fish aod Wildlife Service. 1980). This system was subsequently revised to give priority within the existing matrix to taxonomic groups (higher Iile forms) as in the1981li.ting priority system. The system presently adopted deleles this prelerence for higher Iile forms and adds a new criterion on conflict required by the 1982 Amendmenll. . In particular. the 1982 Amendmentl specify thaI recovery planl shall, 10 the maximwn extent practicable. give priority to those Endangered species or Threatened species mosllikely 10 benefil Irom such planl, particularly those species that are. or may be, in conflict with construction or other development projectl or other forms or economic activity. The present system is intended to satisfy the requirements of the amended Act. It utilizes a modification of the three-factor system oRginally adopled by the FWS in 1980 but includes a fourth factor. conflict. ......