Policy regarding controlled propogation of species listted ... · extinction of a species....

Appendix P.

Policy Regarding ControlledPropagation of Species Listed Under

the Endangered Species Act

56916 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 20, 2000 / Notices

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed informationcollection requirement described belowhas been submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forreview, as required by the PaperworkReduction Act. The Department issoliciting public comments on thesubject proposal.DATES: Comments Due Date: October 20,2000.ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit comments regardingthis proposal. Comments should refer tothe proposal by name and/or OMBapproval number and should be sent to:Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., OMB Desk Officer,Office of Management and Budget,Room 10235, New Executive OfficeBuilding, Washington, DC 20503.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Wayne Eddins, Reports ManagementOfficer, Q, Department of Housing andUrban Development, 451 Seventh Street,Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-

mail [email protected];telephone (202) 708–2374. This is not atoll-free number. Copies of the proposedforms and other available documentssubmitted to OMB may be obtainedfrom Mr. Eddins.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDepartment has submitted the proposalfor the collection of information, asdescribed below, to OMB for review, asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Noticelists the following information: (1) thetitle of the information collectionproposal; (2) the office of the agency tocollect the information; (3) the OMBapproval number, if applicable; (4) thedescription of the need for theinformation and its proposed use; (5)the agency form number, if applicable;(6) what members of the public will beaffected by the proposal; (7) howfrequently information submissions willbe required; (8) an estimate of the totalnumber of hours needed to prepare theinformation submission including

number of respondents, frequency, andhours of response; (9) whether theproposal is new, an extension,reinstatement, or revision of aninformation collection requirement; and(10) the name and telephone number ofan agency official familiar with theproposal and of the OMB Desk Officerfor the Department.

This Notice also lists the followinginformation:

Title of Proposal: HUD 2020 Partners.OMB Approval Number: 2528–XXXX.Form Numbers: None.Description of the Need for the

Information and its Proposed Use: Thepurpose is to survey the perceptions ofHUD partner groups about HUDperformance and changes in that HUD2020 Management reforms.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, State,Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: Biannually.Reporting Burden:

Number of respondents × Frequency ofresponse × Hours per re-

sponse Burden hours

2,418 ..................................................................................................................... 1 0.25 605

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 605.Status: New.Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, asamended.

Dated: September 13, 2000.Wayne Eddins,Departmental Reports Management Officer,Office of the Chief Information Officer.[FR Doc. 00–24103 Filed 9–19–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4210–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

RIN 1018–AG25

Policy Regarding ControlledPropagation of Species Listed Underthe Endangered Species Act

AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior; National Marine FisheriesService, Commerce.ACTION: Notice of policy.

SUMMARY: This policy, published jointlyby the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)and the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), jointly referred to asthe Services, addresses the role ofcontrolled propagation in theconservation and recovery of specieslisted as endangered or threatenedunder the Endangered Species Act of1973 (as amended) (Act). The policyprovides guidance and establishesconsistency for use of controlledpropagation as a component of a listedspecies recovery strategy. This policywill help to ensure smooth transitionsbetween various phases of conservationefforts such as propagation,reintroduction and monitoring, andfoster efficient use of available funds.The policy supports the controlledpropagation of listed species whenrecommended in an approved recoveryplan or when necessary to preventextinction of a species. Appropriate usesof controlled propagation includesupporting recovery related research,maintaining refugia populations,providing plants or animals forreintroduction or augmentation ofexisting populations, and conservingspecies or populations at risk ofimminent extinction or extirpation.DATES: The final policy on controlledpropagation is effective October 20,2000.

ADDRESSES: You may view commentsand materials received during the publiccomment period for the draft policy

document by appointment duringnormal business hours in Room 420,4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington,Virginia 22203.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Harrelson, Division ofEndangered Species, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service at the above address(703/358–2171) or by e-mail [email protected]; or MartaNammack, Office of ProtectedResources, National Marine FisheriesService (301/713–1401) or by e-mail [email protected] INFORMATION: TheEndangered Species Act specificallycharges us with the responsibility foridentification, protection, management,and recovery of species of plants andanimals in danger of extinction.Fulfilling this responsibility requires theprotection and conservation of not onlyindividual organisms and populations,but also the genetic and ecologicalresources that listed species represent.Long-term viability depends onmaintaining genetic adaptability withineach species. Species, as defined insection 3(15) of the Act, includes ‘‘anysubspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,and any distinct population segment ofany species of vertebrate fish or wildlifewhich interbreeds when mature.’’Though the Act emphasizes therestoration of listed species in their

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:59 Sep 19, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 20SEN1

56917Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 20, 2000 / Notices

natural habitats, section 3(3) of the Actrecognizes propagation as a toolavailable to us to achieve this end. Thecontrolled propagation of animals andplants in certain situations is anessential tool for the conservation andrecovery of listed species. In the past,we have used controlled propagation toreverse population declines and tosuccessfully return listed species tosuitable habitat in the wild. To supportthe goal of restoring endangered andthreatened animals and plants, we areobligated to develop sound policiesbased on the best available scientificand commercial information.

Summary of Comments andRecommendations

A draft policy on this subject waspublished on February 7, 1996 (61 FR4716), and invited public comment. Wereceived 47 comments. Twenty-fourwere from zoos, aquariums, botanicalgardens, and conservationorganizations, 3 from academicinstitutions, 6 from private individualsand business organizations, 2 fromgovernment organizations, and 12 fromState natural resource agencies. Nearlyall comments received were supportiveof the policy and its goals. Commentsthat expressed concerns or criticismswere limited, though quite specific. Wereviewed all comments received, andsuggestions or clarifications have beenincorporated into the final policy text.The following describes the major issuesidentified and our responses.

Issue: The draft policy, as published,would have a significant impact interms of increased workload on theServices, zoological parks andaquariums, private organizations, andindividual citizens.

Response: We acknowledge thisconcern and have modified the policy toreduce impacts to the zoo and aquariumcommunity, botanical facilities, Federalfish hatcheries, and others who may beinvolved in propagation of listedspecies. As amended, this final policy isnot expected to have a significantimpact on organizations or individualsinvolved in propagation of listedspecies. The majority of zoological parksand aquaria that are involved inprograms assisting the recovery ofendangered and threatened animalspecies native to the United States aremembers of the American Zoo andAquarium Association (AZA). The AZAhas developed numerous strategies,protocols, and standards that addressconcerns associated with captive animalpopulations involved in conservation-based breeding programs. This finalpolicy encourages the Services, and

others, to follow as may be practical, theprotocols and standards of the AZA, andother appropriate organizations, for thecontrolled propagation of animalspecies. The Center for PlantConservation (CPC) is similar to theAZA in that this organization consists ofmember botanical gardens and arboretathat are involved in preventing theextinction of native plants, includingthose federally listed as endangered orthreatened. When practical, the Servicesand others are encouraged to use theprotocols and standards of the CPC, andother appropriate organizations, whenpropagating listed plant species.

Those individuals or organizationsthat currently have permits to keeplisted species are exempt from thispolicy for the duration of the permitunless the Regional Director (FWS) orAssistant Administrator (NMFS)determines otherwise. For example, apermit holder implementing activitiesrecommended in an approved recoveryplan is exempt and would not need toreapply for a new permit. We have madesubstantial efforts to avoid adverseimpacts, economic or otherwise, inorder that cooperative recoverypartnership opportunities may bemaintained or increased with qualifiedorganizations and individuals.

Issue: The policy would apply toresearch activities identified in recoveryplans in which controlled propagationor unintentional propagation may occur.

Response: Research identified inrecovery plans, including research thatmay lead to development of a controlledpropagation capacity, is not covered bythis policy because the intent of suchresearch is not the production ofindividuals for introduction into thewild. Should offspring that are theproduct of research efforts be proposedfor introduction into the wild, suchoffspring and any proposedreintroductions will be subject to thispolicy.

Should circumstances arise in thecourse of implementing recoveryactivities, including research, in whichapplication of this policy is deemednecessary for the benefit of the listedspecies, the decision to apply the policywill rest with the Regional Director orAssistant Administrator.

Research on species with shortlifespans (e.g., 1 to 2 years) that requiresmaintenance of a captive population notintended for release to the wild isexempt from this policy. However, allactivities involving reproduction of alisted U.S. species must meet therequirements of the Act, as well as anyother legal and administrativeobligations. All persons or institutionsconducting approved activities

involving controlled propagation oflisted species for purposes other thanrelease in the wild will still be requiredto develop appropriate measures toaddress concerns identified undersection E. 5. of this policy.

Issue: The policy would apply toforeign species being maintained andpropagated in U.S. zoological andaquarium facilities or by privateindividuals.

Response: This policy only applies tospecies indigenous to the United Statesand its territories for which we have, orintend to prepare, recovery plans. Wehave exempted foreign species that arelisted under the Act and beingpropagated or maintained in the UnitedStates for conservation purposes.

Issue: Requirements to developgenetics and reintroduction guidancedocuments for species being propagatedfor augmentation of existing populationsor for the establishment of newpopulations in the wild are notpractical.

Response: We recognize this concernand have modified the policyaccordingly. In many instances there isinsufficient biological knowledge of thelisted species to develop detailedgenetic management documents, andthe requirement for these documentsmay unnecessarily burden conservationand recovery efforts. However, westrongly recommend development ofthese documents if adequateinformation is available. Furthermore,we reemphasize the recommendation inthe draft policy that controlledpropagation activities follow acceptedstandards, which include appropriategenetics management.

Issue: There are too many reportingrequirements.

Response: We have reduced reportingrequirements. However, we need toidentify those listed species involved incontrolled propagation programs, thelevel of production in these programs,and efforts to secure appropriate habitatfor population augmentation,reintroduction, and recovery.

Issue: The requirement that controlledpropagation be permitted only ifindicated in an approved final recoveryplan would place an unnecessaryburden on Federal programs to reviseexisting recovery plans to meet thisrequirement.

Response: We do not agree. Therecovery plans for most species forwhich controlled propagation isoccurring have identified this action asa specific recovery task. Wherecontrolled propagation is not identifiedas a task in the recovery plan, but hasbeen subsequently determined to benecessary to the recovery of the species,



the plan would need to be amended orrevised.

Required Determinations

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order12866, this policy was submitted forreview by the Office of Management andBudget. In accordance with the criteriaset forth in Executive Order 12866, thispolicy is not a significant regulatoryaction. Under current and anticipatedlevels of activity, this policy will notresult in an annual economic effect of$100 million or more. Moreover, thispolicy will not adversely affect aneconomic sector, productivity, jobs, theenvironment, or other units ofgovernment. The controlled propagationpolicy does not pertain to commercialproducts or activities or anything tradedin the marketplace.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.601 et seq.)

We certify that this policy will nothave a significant economic effect on asubstantial number of small entities.This policy does not apply to all specieslisted under the Act but only to thosespecies native to the United States andits territories for which recovery plansexist or are expected to be developed.Furthermore, controlled propagation isrestricted to those species for whichsuch propagation is specificallyrecommended in an approved finalrecovery plan. Programs involving thecontrolled propagation of federallylisted species are typically restricted toinstitutions such as the FWS’s NationalFish Hatcheries and Fish TechnologyCenters. Nongovernmental entities thatmay be involved in the controlledpropagation of listed species aretypically organizations with a high levelof technical skill in the captivemaintenance and breeding of plants andanimals, such as zoos, aquaria, andbotanical gardens. Rarely are academicinstitutions and even more infrequently,private individuals, involved in thecontrolled propagation of listed speciesfor conservation and recovery purposes.

3. Small Business Regulatory FairnessAct (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.804(2). This policy will not have anannual effect on the economy of $100million or more, produce increases incosts or prices for consumers,individual industries or Federal, Stateor local government agencies, affecteconomic competitiveness, oreconomically impact geographic regionsin the United States or its territories.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

This policy does not impose anunfunded mandate on any State, Tribal,or local government or the private sectorof $100 million or more per year.

5. TakingsIn accordance with Executive Order

12630, this policy does not posesignificant takings implications, and atakings implication assessment is notrequired. Implementation of this policywill not result in ‘‘take’’ of privateproperty and will not alter the value ofprivate property. Many reintroductionsof propagated species occur exclusivelyon FWS, other Federal, or State lands,but reintroductions on private lands arenot unknown. In such cases, the privateentities work with the Services aswilling partners to ensure the success ofthe reintroduction effort.

6. FederalismIn accordance with Executive Order

13132, this policy does not havesufficient federalism implications towarrant the preparation of a federalismassessment. It does not affect thestructure or role of States, and will nothave direct, substantial, or significanteffects on States. Releases of propagatedspecies typically occur on Federal orState lands. The States work with theServices as willing partners to ensurethe success of reintroduction efforts.

7. Civil Justice ReformIn accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Department of the Interior’sOffice of the Solicitor has determinedthat this policy does not unduly burdenthe judicial system. The final policyprovides clear standards, simplifiesprocedures, reduces burden, and isclearly written such that litigation riskis minimized.

8. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This policy does not contain any newinformation collection requirements forwhich Office of Management andBudget approval under the PaperworkReduction Act is required. The OMBcontrol number for the FWS is 1018–0094 and for NMFS is 0648–0230 and0648–0402.

9. National Environmental Policy ActWe have analyzed this policy under

the criteria of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 asamended, and have determined that theissuance of this policy is categoricallyexcluded by the Department of theInterior in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10.The NMFS concurs with the Department

of the Interior’s determination that theissuance of this policy qualifies for acategorical exclusion and satisfies thecategorical exclusion criteria in theNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration 216–6 AdministrativeOrder, Environmental ReviewProcedure. No further NEPAdocumentation is required.

10. Government-to-GovernmentRelationship With Tribes

Though no reintroductions ofcaptively propagated federallyendangered or threatened species havebeen undertaken, in accordance withthe President’s memorandum of April29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-GovernmentRelations with Native American TribalGovernments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512DM 2, we recognize the potential forsuch actions in the future and theobligation to relate to federallyrecognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis.

References CitedA complete list of all references cited

in this final policy is available onrequest from the Washington Office ofthe Division of Endangered Species (seeADDRESSES section).

Authors. The primary authors of thispolicy are David Harrelson of the Fishand Wildlife Service’s Division ofEndangered Species, Mail Stop 420ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW,Washington, DC 20240 (703/358–2171),and Marta Nammack of the NationalMarine Fisheries Service’s ProtectedSpecies Management Division, 1335East-West Highway, Silver Spring,Maryland 20910 (301/713–1401).

Policy StatementA. What is the purpose of this policy?

This policy provides guidance andestablishes consistency with respect toFish and Wildlife Service (FWS) andNational Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS), jointly called the Services,activities in which the controlledpropagation of a listed species, as theterm ‘‘species’’ is defined in section3(15) of the Act, is implemented as acomponent of the recovery strategy fora listed species. It supports andpromotes coordination between variousphases of controlled propagation effortssuch as propagation technologydevelopment, propagation for release,population augmentation,reintroduction, and monitoring. Thispolicy will also contribute to theefficient use of funding resources.

Guidance is provided regarding theuse of controlled propagation for:

• Preventing the extinction of listedspecies, subspecies, or populations;



• Recovery-oriented scientificresearch, including, but not restrictedto, developing propagation methods andtechnology, and other actions that areexpected to result in a net benefit to thelisted taxon. Use of surrogates, whileapplicable to the recovery of listedspecies, is exempt from therequirements of this policy;

• Maintaining genetic vigor anddemographic diversity of listed species,subspecies, or populations;

• Maintaining refugia populations fornearly extinct animals or plants on atemporary basis until threats to a listedspecies’ habitat are alleviated, ornecessary habitat modifications arecompleted, or when potentiallycatastrophic events occur (e.g., chemicalspills, severe storms, fires, flooding);

• Providing individuals forestablishing new, self-sustainingpopulations necessary for recovery ofthe listed species; and

• Supplementing or enhancing extantpopulations to facilitate recovery of thelisted species.

B. What is the scope of this policy?This policy applies to all pertinentorganizational elements of bothServices, notwithstanding thosedifferences in administrative proceduresand policies as noted. Exceptions to thispolicy appear in section F. This policypertains to all efforts requiring permitsunder 50 CFR 17 subparts C and D,funded, authorized, or carried out by usthat are conducted to propagatethreatened or endangered species by:

• Establishing or maintaining refugiapopulations;

• Producing individuals for researchand technology development needs;

• Producing individuals forsupplementing extant populations; and

• Producing individuals forreintroduction to suitable habitat withinthe species’ historic range.

C. Why is this policy necessary? Thecontrolled propagation of animals andplants in certain situations is anessential tool for the conservation andrecovery of listed species. In the past,we have used controlled propagation toreverse population declines and tosuccessfully return listed species tosuitable habitat in the wild.

Though controlled propagation has asupportive role in the recovery of somelisted species, the intent of the Act is‘‘to provide a means whereby theecosystems upon which endangeredspecies and threatened species dependmay be conserved.’’ Controlledpropagation is not a substitute foraddressing factors responsible for anendangered or threatened species’decline. Therefore, our first priority is torecover wild populations in their

natural habitat wherever possible,without resorting to the use ofcontrolled propagation. This position isfully consistent with the Act.

We recognize that genetic andecological risks may be associated withintroducing to the wild, animals andplants bred and reared in a controlledenvironment. When consideringcontrolled propagation as a recoveryoption, the potential benefits and risksmust be assessed and alternativesrequiring less intervention objectivelyevaluated. If controlled propagation isidentified as an appropriate strategy forthe recovery of a listed species, it mustbe conducted in a manner that will, tothe maximum extent possible, preservethe genetic and ecologicaldistinctiveness of the listed species andminimize risks to existing wildpopulations.

We recognize that for many species,information available for detailedgenetics conservation management orassessment of risks associated withreintroduction may be insufficient.Therefore, this policy does notspecifically require written geneticmanagement plans and ecological riskassessments to initiate or supportcontrolled propagation programs.Additionally, acute conservation needsmay legitimately outweigh delays thatwould be incurred by such arequirement. However, where sufficientbiological and environmentalinformation exists, and whereconservation activities would not beunduly constrained, a formalassessment of ecological and geneticrisks is strongly encouraged. Risks thatmust be evaluated in the planning ofcontrolled propagation programsinclude the following specific examples:

• Removal of natural parental stockthat may result in an increased risk ofextinction by reducing the abundance ofwild individuals and reducing geneticvariability within naturally occurringpopulations;

• Equipment failures, human error,disease, and other potential catastrophicevents that may cause the loss of someor all of the population being held ormaintained in captivity or cultivation;

• The potential for an increased levelof inbreeding or other adverse geneticeffects within populations that mayresult from the enhancement of only aportion of the gene pool;

• Potential erosion of geneticdifferences between populations as aresult of mixed stock transfers orsupplementation;

• Exposure to novel selection regimesin controlled environments that maydiminish a listed species’ natural

capacity to survive and reproduce in thewild;

• Genetic introgression, which maydiminish local adaptations of thenaturally occurring population;

• Increased predation, competitionfor food, space, mates, or other factorsthat may displace naturally occurringindividuals, or interfere with foraging,migratory, reproductive, or otheressential behaviors; and

• Disease transmission.Controlled propagation programs

must be undertaken in a manner thatminimizes potentially adverse impactsto existing wild populations of listedspecies, and we must conductcontrolled propagation programs in amanner that avoids additional listingactions.

D. What are the definitions for termsused in this policy? The followingdefinitions apply:

Controlled environment—Acontrolled environment is onemanipulated for the purpose ofproducing or rearing progeny of thespecies in question, and of a designintended to prevent unplanned escapeor entry of plants, animals, or gametes,embryos, seeds, propagules, or otherpotential reproductive products.

Controlled propagation—Amonganimals, it includes natural or artificialmatings, fertilization of sex cells,transfer of embryos, development ofoffspring, and grow-out of individuals ofa species when the species isintentionally confined or the mating isdirectly intended by humanintervention.

The term also includes the human-induced propagation of plants fromseeds, spores, callus tissue, divisions,cuttings, or other plant tissue, orthrough pollination in a controlledenvironment.

• Defined in the context of thispolicy, controlled propagation refers tothe production of individuals, generallywithin a managed environment, for thepurpose of supplementing oraugmenting a wild population(s), orreintroduction to the wild to establishnew populations.

Intercross—Any instance ofinterbreeding or genetic exchangebetween individuals of different species,subspecies, or distinct populationsegments of a vertebrate species.

Phenotype—The expression of thegenetic makeup of an organism throughphysical characteristics that make up itsappearance.

Recovery priority system—The systemused for assigning recovery priorities tolisted species and to recovery tasks.Recovery priority is based on the degreeof threat, recovery potential, taxonomic



distinctness, and presence of an actualor imminent conflict between thespecies’ conservation, adverse humanactivities, and other threats.

Rescue and salvage—These termsrefer to extreme conditions wherein aspecies or population segment at risk ofextinction is brought into a controlledenvironment (i.e., refugia) on atemporary or permanent basis.

Taxon—A formal group of organismsof any rank or formal scientificclassification.

E. What is our Policy? This policy isintended to address candidate,proposed, and listed species indigenousto the United States and its territoriesfor which the Services, have, or intendto prepare, recovery plans. This policyfocuses primarily on those activitiesinvolving gamete transfer andsubsequent development and grow-outof offspring in a laboratory, botanicalfacility, zoo, hatchery, aquarium, orsimilarly controlled environment. Thispolicy also addresses activities relatedto or preceding controlled propagationactivities such as:

• Obtaining and rearing offspring forresearch;

• Procuring broodstock for futurecontrolled propagation andaugmentation efforts; or

• Holding offspring for a substantialportion of their development or througha life-stage that experiences poorsurvival in the wild.

The goals of this policy includecoordinating recovery actions specific tocontrolled propagation activities;maximizing benefits to the listed speciesfrom controlled propagation efforts;assuring that appropriate recoverymeasures other than controlledpropagation and that other existingrecovery priorities are considered inmaking controlled propagationdecisions; and ensuring prudent use offunds.

Our policy is that the controlledpropagation of threatened andendangered species will be:

1. Used as a recovery strategy onlywhen other measures employed tomaintain or improve a listed species’status in the wild have failed, aredetermined to be likely to fail, areshown to be ineffective in overcomingextant factors limiting recovery, orwould be insufficient to achieve fullrecovery. All reasonable effort should bemade to accomplish conservationmeasures that enable a listed species torecover in the wild, with or withoutintervention (e.g., artificial cavityprovisioning), prior to implementingcontrolled propagation forreintroduction or supplementation.

2. Coordinated with conservationactions and other recovery measures, asappropriate or specified in recoveryplans, that will contribute to, orotherwise support, the provision ofsecure and suitable habitat. Controlledpropagation programs intended forreintroduction or augmentation must becoordinated with habitat management,restoration, and other species’ recoveryefforts.

3. Based on the specificrecommendations of recovery strategiesidentified in approved recovery plans orsupplements to approved recovery planswhenever practical. The recovery plan,in addressing controlled propagation,should clearly identify the necessity androle of this activity as a recoverystrategy.

4. Based on specific consideration ofthe potential ecological and geneticeffects of the removal of individuals forcontrolled propagation purposes onwild populations and the potentialeffects of introductions of artificiallybred animals or plants on the receivingpopulation and other resident species.Assessments of potential risks andbenefits will be addressed, as required,through sections 7 and 10 of the Act andthe National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332) for proposedcontrolled propagation actions.

5. Based on sound scientificprinciples to conserve genetic variationand species integrity. Intercrossing willnot be considered for use in controlledpropagation programs unlessrecommended in an approved recoveryplan; supported in an approved geneticmanagement plan (if information isavailable to develop such a plan, andwhich may or may not be part of anapproved recovery plan); implementedin a scientifically controlled andapproved manner; and undertaken tocompensate for a loss of genetic viabilityin listed taxa that have been geneticallyisolated in the wild as a result of humanactivity. Use of intercross individualsfor species conservation will require theapproval of the FWS Director or that ofthe NMFS Assistant Administrator, inaccordance with all applicable policies.

6. Preceded, when practical, by thedevelopment of a genetics managementplan based on accepted scientificprinciples and procedures. Controlledpropagation protocols will followaccepted standards such as thoseemployed by the American Zoo andAquarium Association (AZA), theCenter for Plant Conservation (CPC),and Federal agency protocols such asfish management guidelines to theextent practical. All efforts will be madeby us and our cooperators to ensure thatthe genetic makeup of propagated

individuals is representative of that infree-ranging populations and thatpropagated individuals are behaviorallyand physiologically suitable forintroduction. Determination ofbiological ‘‘suitability’’ may include, butshould not necessarily be limited to,analysis of geomorphologicalsimilarities of habitat, genetic similarity,phenotypic characteristics, stockhistories, habitat use, and otherecological, biological, and behavioralindicators. All controlled propagationprograms will address the issue ofdisposition of individuals found to be:

(a) Unfit for introduction to the wild;(b) Unfit to serve as broodstock;(c) Surplus to program needs; or(d) Surplus to the recovery needs for

the species (e.g., to preclude genetic andecological swamping).

Controlled propagation activitiesshould not be initiated withoutincluding consideration of these issuesand obtaining required permits andother authorizations as necessary.Disposition of individuals surplus toprogram needs may include use forresearch or other appropriate purposes.

Programs involving the controlledpropagation of listed species forresearch purposes identified in finalrecovery plans and in which progenywill not be reintroduced to the wild areexempt from this policy. Examples ofexempt actions include researchinvolving the determination ofgermination rates in plants andspawning success rates in fish. Thisexemption does not extend to the needfor these activities to comply with anyother applicable Federal or Statepermitting or regulatory requirements.

7. Conducted in a manner that takesall known precautions to prohibit thepotential introduction or spread ofdiseases and parasites into controlledenvironments or suitable habitat.

8. Conducted in a manner that willprevent the escape or accidentalintroduction of individuals outside theirhistoric range.

9. Conducted, when feasible, at morethan one location in order to reduce thepotential for catastrophic loss at a singlefacility when a substantial fraction of aspecies or important populationsegment is brought into captivity.

10. Coordinated, as appropriate, withorganizations and qualified individualsboth within and outside our agencies.We will cooperate with other Federalagencies and State, Tribal, and localgovernments.

11. Conducted in a manner that willmeet our information needs and thatwill be in accordance with acceptedprotocols and standards. In the case oflisted species for which traditional



studbooks or registrations are notpractical, records of eggs, larvae, orother life-stages will be maintained.

12. With limited exceptions,implemented only after a commitmentto funding is secured.

13. Prior to releases of propagatedindividuals, tied to development of areintroduction plan, unless thisinformation is already contained in anapproved recovery plan, speciessurvival plan, or equivalent documentthat has received the approval of theappropriate Service. Controlledpropagation and reintroduction planswill identify measurable objectives andmilestones for the proposed propagationand reintroduction effort. Thecontrolled propagation andreintroduction plan should be based onstrategies identified in the approvedrecovery plan. It should includeprotocols for health management,disease screening and disease-freecertification, monitoring and evaluationof genetic, demographic, life-history,phenotypic, and behavioralcharacteristics, data collection,recordkeeping, and reporting asappropriate. On implementation,periodic evaluations must be made toassess project progress and considernew scientific information and thestatus of habitat conservation efforts.

14. Conducted in accordance with theregulations implementing theEndangered Species Act, MarineMammal Protection Act, AnimalWelfare Act, Lacey Act, Fish andWildlife Act of 1956, and the Services’procedures relative to NEPA.

F. Does this policy allow anyexceptions? Except as identified in thissection, any exceptions to the abovepolicy guidelines will require specificapproval from the FWS Director or theNMFS Assistant Administrator on a caseby case basis. The followingcircumstances have been anticipatedand are exempted from this policy.

1. Pacific salmon are exempted fromthis policy. NMFS, as the lead Servicefor the recovery of listed Pacific salmon,has developed and will continue to usethe interim policy (April 5, 1993, 58 FR17573) addressing controlledpropagation of these species. The NMFSinterim artificial propagation policymore specifically addresses thebiological needs of these species.

2. Cases where a listed species has anephemeral reproductive stage or short(1–2 year) lifespan that necessitatescontrolled propagation to sustain thelisted species in refugia, or to maintaina research population where there is nointent to release captive-bredindividuals from that population intothe wild, are exempt.

3. In the absence of an approvedrecovery plan, recommendationscontained in recovery outlines, draftrecovery plans, or made in writing by arecovery team may be used to justifycontrolled propagation as a necessaryrecovery measure for listed species indanger of imminent extinction orextirpation of critical populations.However, under such circumstancesinitiation of controlled propagationactivities will require the RegionalDirector’s or Assistant Administrator’sapproval.

4. Candidate and proposed speciesheld in refugia, used in research, orused for the development of propagationtechnology that are subsequently listedas endangered or threatened areexempted from this policy. Anypropagation program initiated withcandidate or proposed species with theintent to produce individuals for releaseto the wild are not exempted and mustcomply with this policy.

5. Captive breeding of listed speciesthat are not native to the United Statesor its territories or possessions, andproducing individuals not addressed inan approved recovery plan and notintended for release within the UnitedStates or its territories or possessions, isexempt from this policy. However, suchactivities must comply with any otherFederal and State laws, permit needs, orother requirements.

6. The temporary removal andholding of listed individuals, unlesssuch actions intentionally involvereproduction other than for purposes ofrecovery-related research or as neededto maintain a refugia population isexempted.

7. The short-term holding or captive-rearing of wild-bred individualsobtained for later reintroduction,augmentation, or translocation effortswhen controlled propagation does nottake place or is not intended during theperiod of captive maintenance.

8. Actions involving cryopreservationor other methods of conservingbiological materials, if not intended fornear-term use in controlled propagationor the reintroduction into the wild oflisted species, are exempt from thispolicy. When and if reintroduction tothe wild requires the use of thesematerials, such activities would comeunder the scope of this policy.

9. Additional exceptions to this policymay be made on a case-by-case basiswith the approval of the FWS Directoror NMFS Assistant Administrator, aswarranted.

Where conflicts may arise betweenthis policy and programs carried out infurtherance of restoration goals orrequired by treaty, trust resources

obligations, or other legal mandate, wewill, to the extent practical, make everyeffort to achieve solutions that areconsistent with the requirements of theAct and this policy.

G. Who are our potential partners? Werecognize the need for partnerships withother Federal agencies, States, Tribes,local governments, and private entitiesin the recovery of listed species. We willseek to develop partnerships withqualified cooperators for the purpose ofpropagating listed, proposed, andcandidate species (as authorized undersections 6 and 2(a)(5) of the Act).Guidance for this activity is as follows:

1. The FWS Regional Directors or theNMFS Regional Administrators mayexplore opportunities for accomplishingcontrolled propagation and anyassociated research tasks with otherFederal cooperators, FWS/NMFSfacilities, State agencies, Tribes,zoological parks, aquaria, botanicalgardens, academia, and other qualifiedparties at their discretion. We will selectcooperators on the basis of scientificmerits; technical capability; willingnessto adhere to our policies, guidance, andprotocols; and cost-effectiveness.

2. Regional Directors or RegionalAdministrators, depending on whichagency has lead for the species, will beresponsible for ensuring appropriatestaff oversight of programs conducted byall cooperators to ensure adherence tonecessary protocols, guidance, andpermit conditions, and to coordinatereporting requirements.

H. What are the Federal agencyresponsibilities under this policy? Thispolicy shall be implemented inaccordance with the followingguidelines:

1. The Regional Directors andRegional Administrators will ensurecompliance with this policy for thosespecies for which they haveresponsibility.

2. Regional Directors and RegionalAdministrators are responsible forrecovery of listed species under theirjurisdiction. Recovery actions for whichRegional Directors and RegionalAdministrators have authority includeestablishment of refugia, initiation ofnecessary research or technologydevelopment, implementation ofcontrolled propagation programs, andpropagation research for listed species.When determining species’ priority forinclusion in controlled propagationprograms, we will consider thefollowing:

(a) Whether or not a listed species’recovery plan outline, draft recoveryplan, or final recovery plan identifiescontrolled propagation as anappropriate recovery strategy and what



priority this task is assigned within theoverall recovery strategy.

(b) The availability and willingness ofcooperators to contribute to recoveryactivities, including cost sharing.

3. In the event that the currentrecovery plan fails to identify theestablishment of refugia, initiation ofpropagation research, or controlledpropagation as recovery tasks asnecessary to the recovery of the species,the recovery plan will be updated,amended, or revised as appropriate.Recovery plans not yet finalized will beamended to reflect the changed recoveryrequirements of the listed species andprovide justifications as necessary.

4. Within 6 months of the effectivedate of this policy, FWS RegionalDirectors will identify all listed speciesfor which they have the lead recoveryresponsibility that are (1) being held inrefugia; (2) involved in pre-propagationresearch; and (3) are involved incontrolled propagation programs. Forspecies involved in controlledpropagation programs, the level ofproduction and the recovery purpose(e.g., augmentation of extantpopulations, establishment of newpopulations) will be identified. Thisinformation will be reported to theAssistant Director, Endangered Species,in the FWS Washington D.C. Office.

5. Continuation of those programs notin conformity with this policy 12months following implementation ofthis policy will require the FWSDirector’s or NMFS AssistantAdministrator’s concurrence. TheRegional Director and RegionalAdministrator will provide his or herrecommendation to the Director orAssistant Administrator.

I. Does the policy include annualreporting requirements? For the FWS,annual reports based on fiscal years willbe prepared by the responsible regionalauthority and submitted to the Director,through the Assistant Director,Endangered Species, not later thanOctober 31st of each year. Reports willcontain the following information foreach species being maintained inrefugia, in pre-propagation research, orunder propagation:

• Recovery priority number;• Policy criteria that are not met (if

any);• A brief description of the controlled

propagation program, includingobjectives and status;

• List of cooperators, if any;• Expenditures for the past fiscal

year;• Prospects for, or obstacles to,

achieving research, controlledpropagation, or reintroductionobjectives, and,

• A brief description of the status ofwild populations, if any.

J. What authorities support thispolicy? The Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended; Marine MammalProtection Act of 1972, as amended;Animal Welfare Act; Lacey Act; Fishand Wildlife Act of 1956; and NationalEnvironmental Policy Act.

K. What are the information collectionrequirements? The permit applicationrequired for participation in thecontrolled propagation of species listedunder the Act is FWS form #3–200–55Interstate Commerce and Recovery andform #3–200–56 for incidental take.Applicants for NMFS research/enhancement permits or incidental takepermits must meet certain criteria intheir applications but there are nospecific forms. We use these forms orapplications to permit recovery actionsthat may be undertaken for scientificpurposes, enhancement of propagationor survival, or for incidental taking.Whenever we ask the public to submitinformation, we must haveauthorization from the Office ofManagement and Budget. As part of thepermitting process, we often ask thepublic to provide information such asfilling out permit applications orsubmitting reports.

Information collection requirementsunder this policy are included under theOffice of Management and Budgetcollection approval number 1018–0094(FWS) and 0648–0230 (NMFS), whichincludes information collection forpermits granted for interstate commerceand recovery and incidental take. Theexpiration date of this approval isFebruary 28, 2001(FWS), and October31, 2001 (NMFS). The purpose ofinformation collection is to identifyperformance of permitted tasks andmake decisions, according to criteriaestablished in various Federal wildlifeand plant conservation statutes anddescribed in 50 CFR 17.22(a)(1) and (3)and 17.32(a)(1) and (3) (FWS) and 50CFR 222 (NMFS).

We have estimated that the timerequired by an applicant to completeFWS form 3–200–55 is 2 hours.Applications to NMFS for these permitsare estimated to require 80 hours forcompletion. The information required isalready known to the applicant andneed only be entered on the applicationform. Summary information forendangered species permit applicationswill be published in the FederalRegister as required by regulation. Thisnotice is provided pursuant to section10(c) of the Act and NEPA regulations(40 CFR 1506.6). The total burden hoursfor completing reporting requirements isalso estimated at 2 hours for the FWS

and 80 hours for NMFS. No costs toapplicants beyond the cost of hourburden described above are anticipated.Annual reports are generally requiredfor permits for scientific research.

For organizations, businesses, orindividuals operating as a business (i.e.,permittee not covered by the PrivacyAct), we request that such entitiesidentify any information that should beconsidered privileged and confidentialbusiness information to allow us to meetour responsibilities under the Freedomof Information Act. Confidentialbusiness information must be clearlymarked ‘‘Business Confidential’’ at thetop of the first page and each succeedingpage, and must be accompanied by anonconfidential summary of theconfidential information. Documentsmay be made available to the publicunder Department of the InteriorFreedom of Information Act (FOIA)regulations in 43 CFR 2.13(c)(4), 43 CFR2.15(d)(1)(I) and Department ofCommerce 15 CFR 4. Documents andother information submitted with theseapplications are made available forpublic review, subject to therequirements of the Privacy Act andFOIA, by any party who submits awritten request for a copy of suchdocuments to the appropriate Servicewithin 30 days of the date of publicationof the notice.

Signed: August 4, 2000.Jamie Rappaport Clark,Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Department of the Interior.

Dated: August 18, 2000.Penelope D. Dalton,Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 00–23957 Filed 9–19–00; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P


Bureau of Land Management

[NM–020–1040–HV; NMNM–102554]

A Direct Sale of Public Land to RichardMontoya of Santa Fe, NM

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management(BLM), Interior.ACTION: Notice of realty action.

SUMMARY: The following public land hasbeen found suitable for direct sale underSection 203 of the Federal Land Policyand Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat.2750, 43 U.S.C. 1713) and at no lessthan the estimated fair market value.The land will not be offered for saleuntil at least 60 days after the date ofthis notice.


Appendix Q.

Example Implementation Schedule

Hibiscadelphus distans

Appendix R.

Peer Review Documents

Sample Peer Review LetterNotes on Peer ReviewsPeer Review Checklist

Broad scope of review: Meffe et al. (1998) identify “demonstrated competence in the subject”as an important qualification of an “independent reviewer.” Recovery plans, however,commonly integrate analyses ranging from assessment of specific threats to a species, to the roleof demographic factors on population viability, to reserve design. Given this array of scientificquestions, it is often a formidable challenge to find individual scientists who can respond to allsalient issues in a recovery plan. Multiple-species plans compound the complexities of review.

Along this same line, a challenge to peer review of some recovery plans is their length: recoveryplans may exceed 100 pages, and some are much longer. In addition, many plans include a greatdeal of nonscientific legal and policy language.

In seeking more focused reviews, a number of considerations come into play. Any perceptionthat the FWS & NMFS’ are compromising reviewer independence must be avoided; separatereviews for a multiplicity of issues require close coordination; and identifying separate reviewersfor specific issues may intensify the fundamental challenge of recruiting independent reviewerswhen many experts are already engaged in recovery planning activities.

Maintaining high information standards in the face of scientific uncertainties: Althoughrecovery actions involve principles common to a wider range of scientific work, an awareness ofthe legal and administrative requirements that circumscribe recovery planning is critical toproviding useful reviews. Peer review in this context not only requires careful evaluation ofexisting data, it also entails consideration of major scientific uncertainties (NRC 1995).

Most scientists appreciate the implications of Type I versus Type II errors in evaluation ofscientific data but may not be as well versed in the legal imperative of making decisions andtaking actions that often involve large uncertainties. This may lead scientists and other experts tothe cautious conclusion that, for instance, not enough information is available to either support oroppose a recovery recommendation. The ESA, however, does not give agencies the latitude todelay such determinations nor does it relieve them from fully justifying a decision based on thebest available information; for instance, the ESA requires that recovery plans include objective,measurable recovery criteria regardless of the level of available scientific information.

Those experts who work directly with Service biologists (e.g., on recovery teams) are affordedopportunities to understand the intricacies of the law and its application to a particular species. Independent reviewers, by definition, lack this interaction, although some may have ESAexperience through involvement with other species. Lack of familiarity with ESA requirementsmay give rise to otherwise perceptive comments that are “outside the scope of agencydiscretion”-- a counterproductive effort for both the reviewer and the agency.

One aspect of this problem deserves special consideration. Reviewers, particularly activeresearchers, are often predisposed to offer recommendations regarding study needs for the subject

species. Although these insights are often highly germane to species conservation, it is importantthat they be clearly distinguished from any evaluation as to whether the best available data havebeen appropriately considered in the listing or planning process.

Time and funding constraints: Policy requirements constrain the allotted time and otherlogistics of independent reviews. Recovery planning does not have legally mandated deadlines,but Departmental policy (FWS-NMFS 1994b) requires completion of most recovery plans within2.5 years following listing.

Within this time, independent peer review must be conducted concurrently with the publiccomment period mandated by the ESA, with a minimum comment period of 30 days for draftrecovery plans. Although comment periods can be extended and/or short review periods can beameliorated somewhat by narrowing the topics for review, the problem is intractable to the extentthat knowledgeable reviewers often bear heavy time commitments. On the other hand, it isinherently illogical to provide a leisurely schedule for review of documents pertaining to theprotection of imperiled species.

Monetary compensation has been suggested as a means to assure timely and responsiveindependent peer review (e.g., Meffe et al.1998); however, agency funding for peer review couldfurther strap endangered species budgets. Furthermore, monetary compensation to reviewersmay create perceived conflicts of interest.

Use of interim reviews: Meffe et al. (1998) make the point that peer review is most constructivewhen it is fully integrated into the decision making process. This typically takes the form ofearly, informal reviews conducted “before positions become set and considerable time and effortare invested in elaborating plans;” Departmental policy supports this approach under the rubric of“special reviews” (FWS-NMFS 1994a). Intermediate reviews are especially valuable whendecisions build upon each other. A population viability analysis, for example, may underpinrecovery targets that, in turn, become fundamental to reserve design.

Interim peer reviews are a challenge to implement, however, in the time frame set out by policyfor recovery planning. It may also be problematic to impose on busy scientists for repeatedreviews, and lack of timely response to past requests for independent review of draft plans maypose a disincentive to expand the number of reviews.

Appendix S.

NMFS and FWS Listing Priority Guidelines

< Federal Regfstor / Vol. 55. No: l&3 / F ._

, .,

-iday, lune 15, 1990 / Notices

Docket No. 7101540671

Endangered and Thre Lbting and Recovery Guldelinee

AGENCY: National Marin

ACTION: Notice.

threatened under the E

FOR FURTHER fNFOAlMA Patricia Montanio, Pro Management Mvision, Protected Resources a Programs, National Ma Service, 1335 East We

: sprtng, MD 20910, (301 SUFPLEMENlARY INFO

establish agency guid

oreign species are mo enefit from bilateral or

agreements under sectio

and other forms of international cooperative efforts. Section 4(f) of the Act also requires NOAA Fisheries to give priority to those endangered or threatened species (without regard to taxonomic classification) most likely to blenefit from such plans, particularly those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other d~evelopmental projects or other forms of economic activity. Section 4(h) of the Act requires that NOAA Fisheries establish a system for developing and implementing recovery-plans on a p:riority basis.

The assignment of priorities to listing, reclassification, delisting, and recovery aictions will allow NOM Fisheries to use the limited resources available to implement the Act in the most effective way. On May 30, lfM9, NOM Fisheries published proposed guidelines in the Feded Register (5&l% 22925) and requested comments. No comments were received from the public. NOAA Fisheries issues these final guidelines .wrIth only slight modifications from the proposal based on internal reviews.

These guidelines are based primarily o:n guidelines published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (EWS) on S’eptember 2X1983 (43 FR 43338). NOM Fisheries believes that, to the ‘extent p;ractical, both agencies should follow similar priority guidelines for listing,

+ reclassification, deliating and recovery. To 0e extent possible; NOM Fisheries h(ae adopted the priority guidelines in u:se by FWS. However, due to the. smaller number of Rated apedes and the anticipated smaller num%er of candidate sped&a under NOM tiheries jurisdiction, NOAA Fisheries believes that fewer priority categories are - nlecessary ahd the FWS guidehnes have bleen modified accordingly.

These priority systems are guidelines and should not be interpreted as inflexible frameworks for making final d~ecisions on funding or on performance of tasks. They wtll be given considerable weight by the agency in miaking decisions; however,.the agency will’also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of funding and tasks and take advantage of opportunities. For example, the agency may be able to conduct a relatively low priority item in conjunction with an ongoing activity at little cost. - -

A. Listing, Reclassificcrtion, axid D&sting Priorities

I. Listing and Reclassification From Threatened to Endangered

III considering species to be listed or reclassified from threatened to

l&decal Register / Vol. .55. No. 1% / F.:iday, June 16, 1990 / ,Notices 24297

endangered, two criteria,will be evaluated-to establish four-priority categories as shown in Table 1.

TABLE G-PRIORITIES .FOR LSTING OR RECXASSIFICAWON FROM THREATENED TO ENDANGERED

Magnltd of thrast ’ iprkri- lmmsd6cycfthreat &

Hioh ... .. . . . . . “..... . , . . “““! hlmhwlt.- ....

I---. 4

1 ‘nmlt .” I .........

Low bY Modercrte ..“. 4i!blhM ...... -. ............. i: ._.“.” 4

The ,first -c&e&m, magnitude-of threat, gives a higher ~listiqpiority to species facing the ,greatest threats -to their continued existence. Species facing threa ta of low to .moderrrte magnitude will be given.a lowerpziority. The recond.criteriaa. immediaqysb.threaL @aa a higher .&sting gtiotity .t~sipecies factng actual &eats &tan 40 those apeciee faciag @ato to which’they.are intrinai~y v&erabie,.but which ere Mt .CWXltl$J ZtBtiYR. ‘2 D&~ng.and%edass~ficaficm From Endangered .toThreateneU

NOAA Firhedes cucrefifly redews listed spediee tit leas’t every &years in accordance With secfion 41~x2) of Ihe Act to determine whether anynsted species qualify for Wlassification or removal from theIist. When a species warrants-reclussfftcation ordelisfing, priortty ‘for de&loping tegula’tions will ‘be,assigned according;to&e@ideIines given in Teble 2 Two criteria will ‘be evaluated to estab!ish iix piiority categories.

TABLE 2.-PRIORITJES FOJ? DELISTING AND RECLASSIFICATION FROM ENDANGERED TO THREATENED

Managefnent Impad: @e8ttiis&tua Rfiofity I I

High . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.. Petitioned action ., ~thlpembned :

wztion. Moderate . . . . . .._-.._....... Petitbned actiin . . 3

unJletitioned 4 ’ action.

Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioned action ., 5 Unpetitioned 6

action.

The priorities established in Fable 2 are not intended to direct or mandate decisions regarding a species’ reclassification or removal from the list. The priority system is’intended only to set priorities for developing rules for species that no longer satisfy the listing criteria for their pafiicular designation under the Act. The dedision regarding whether a species wiil be.retained on

the list, and in whidh based on the ,factors section 4(a)(X) df tie 424.U.

The fiFetsonsidertrti outlined in TeMe%acc management impaotien species’ inolu&mon %h Management Impact is th rotective actions lnclu

.between the E#~IIIS o&l 1 end.2 Mthoughthe sa tilteda appb in miking’

j delistieg deterniinations,. consider&ions for settin delisting priorities are ql Candidate species facin! critical threats will be gi priotityfor tisfiqg fhan 4 cotiidered’for dtiIisG4g. de’Iisfirlg.proposal ‘Ear aJ species fhat wvoda elini unwarranted utilization resources may, in appro, take precedence.overlis for species not facing im threats.

B. RecowyPJtxn :Pwpal implementation &ioriti(

The,recovery pfioiity used as.8 wide for recoq development, recovery t implementation and rest It consists of two palcts- recovery;priority and rel priority. Species recover be .used for recovery IJla Recovery task priority, 4 species -recovery priorit! set priorities for funding performance of individu tasks,as expldned belo3

1. Species Recovery Pric

Species recovery prio three criteria+magnituc recovery poIential*and ( criteria are arranged in,

immediate, en a higher eciesbciing iikfxvise, a covered ate f.Iimited riate .lnstances. ng proposals iediate, critical

ystem wlfll be ny plan dk uce rtllocetion. 3pedies Ivery task priority will .development. g&her w’ifh wiil ,be used to ind 1 recoveq

ity

ty isbased on ! of threat, Inflict. These matrix yielding

twelve species,recovev priotity numbers:(Table 3).

-___I k@p-$ @ --

NrQll............”

tecn&-

Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

--

i w . ..-..........,

Lowto i :~:_.

‘oonnii ..,....: ~?lwnieIate. :

blWtV~..EE?:;

: .No.conflict.... Lowto COM . . . ...“.

4nodene

NnodeJratw. ! I No conffiil...~ I

The Rest coiterion, magnitude of .threat +sdivided+nto Zhree~categories: JSigh, moderate, arid low. The high ~cetegorymrf3anace#tinction is almost cxwtain ‘In cthe iimmedia te future because da rapidpogrllafion decline or habitat 4estzucfionJdodePete means the species wilI lnat Jece fe&nction if recovery is ‘l.emporaeily%eld off, although there is a continuingpo.pril&ion decline or threat Y.oJtshaWtat. rSnxa ln the low category are rare, or aze facing a population decline tihich may:be a short-term, self- correctingfluctutiion, or the impacts of threats to fhe species’ habitat are’not IFully known.

The second nlterian, recwq potential. ‘assures *that resources .are used in the most cast effectiuemunner within each magnitude of threat mnking. Priori@ for preparing and implementing recovery p1a.m~ would go to species with {the greatest potential for success. :Recovery potential is .based:on how well -!biological.zutd~eoological limiting factors and thma’ts~to he species’ edrtonce .are ,unaerstood, and-the extent cd .:managemerit actions nbeded. #:spetics has.a hi&recovery potential 3f the limiting Jactors .and Lthreats to the species are weIl understood.and the m&led management actions ore known and have a liigh~obabili~ of SUCCCSS. .Aspecies!has.a,low to moderate zecoverypotential if the limiting factors or threats to the species are poorly understood or &the needed management acfions are no1 known, tire cost-prohibitiue or are expefimental with an uncertain probability ofsuccess.

The third c&&on, conflict, refledts the Act’s requirement that recovery priority:be @en to those species that are, or may be, .in conflict with construction or other developmental projects or other forms of economic

24298 Federal Register Vol. 55, NO. 110 ,

activity. Thus. species judged as being in conflict with such activities will be given higher priority for recovery plan development and implementation than non-conflict species within the same ,nagnitude of threat/recovery potential ranking. Species in conflict with construction or other developmental projects or other forms of economic activity would be identified in large part through consultations conducted with Federal agencies under section 7 of the, Act.

2. Recovery Task Priority Reoovery plans will identify specific

tasks that are needed for the recovery of a listed species. NOAA Fisheries will assfgn tasks priorities of 1 to 3 based on the criteria set forth fn Table 4.

TAEU ~.--RECOVERY TASK PRIORITY.

I TVpeOflflSk

3 ._.... -.--I I.....

It should be noted that even the highest priority tasks within a plan are not gfven a Priority 1 rat&ii unless they are actions ne-sary to prevent a species from becomfng extinct or to identify those actions necessary to prevent extinction. Therefore, some plans will not have any Priority 1 tasks. In general Priority 1 tasks only apply to a species facfng a bigb magnitude of threat (species recovery priority 1-I).

When the task priorities (Table 4) are combined with the species recovery priority (Table ?I), the most critical activities for each listed species can be identified and evaluated against other species recovery actions. This system recognizes the need to work toward the recovery of all listed species, not simply those facing the highest magnitude of threat. In general, NOAA Fisheries intends that priority 1 tasks will be addressed before Priority 3 tasks and Priority 2 tasks before Priority 3 tasks. Within each task priority, species recovery priority will be used to further rank tasks. For examnle. a Prioritv 1 task for a species wi<h a recovery priority of 4 would rank higher than a priority z task for a species with a

rccovcry priority of 1: task for a species with priority of 2 would ran Priority I task for a sp recovery priority of 4. same priority ranking. Administrator will det appropriate allocation resources.

C. Recovery Plans As recovery plans a

each species, specific identified and prforitir the criteria discussed information warrants. including tasks and pr reviewed and revised funding and implemen identified in recovery tracked in order to ail management of the ret

NOAA Fisheries be periodic review and u and tracking of rccovt important elements of recovery program. Inf tracking and impleme actions and other sotr to review plans and n necessary. These and NOAA’s recovery pla be discussed in more Planning Guidelines i developing. Classification

The General Couns Department of Comm the Small Business AI these guidelines woul significant economic i substantial number oj because they do not c decisions on a specie, reclassification or del set up priorities for la agency review of spec development and recc implementation. As a flexibility analysis w,

Dated: June 8.1990. Wiiam W. Fox, Jr, Assistant AdminislmtoI National Oceanic and A Adminisfmtion. [FR Dot. 90-13895 Filed B(WNO COLX asio-22-u

Friday. june 15. 1990 / Notices -

d. a Priority 1 recovery Ggher than a ies with a r tasks with the e Assistant mine the i available

developed for :overy tasks are 1 according to ave. As new ese plans, rities, will be I addition, tion of the tasks am will be 1 effective very rogram.

t/i vea at .ating of plans 1 efforts are successful nation from ng recovery !s will be used .se them as her elements of ing process will taif in Recover-v t the agency is *

of the x certified to linistration that not have a pact on a mall entities ect or mandate listing, tins. Rather, they r decisions as to ~9, recovery plan ery task !sult, a regulatoq not prepared.

r Fisheries, ospheric

14-9@ &I:45 am]

1

Appendix T.

Notices of Availability of Draft RecoveryPlans for Review and Comment



Notice of Availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Star Cactus (Astrophytum asterias)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability for publicreview of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Star Cactus (Astrophytum asterias). The star cactus isknown to occur on one private land site in Starr County, Texas. Additional populations may befound in Tamaulipas, Mexico. The Service solicits review and comment from the public on thisdraft plan.

DATES: The comment period for this Draft Recovery Plan closes November 18, 2002.Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan must be received by the closing date.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the Draft Recovery Plan can obtain a copy from theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office, c/o TAMUCC,6300 Ocean Drive, Box 338, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78412. Comments and materials concerning this Draft Recovery Plan may be sent to ``Field Supervisor'' at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loretta Pressly, Corpus Christi EcologicalServices Field Office, at the above address; telephone (361) 994-9005, facsimile (361) 994-8262.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The star cactus (Astrophytum asterias) was listed as endangered on October 18, 1993, underauthority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The threats facing the survivaland recovery of this species include: habitat destruction through conversion of native habitat toagricultural land and increased urbanization; competition with exotic invasive species; geneticvulnerability due to low population numbers; and collecting pressures for cactus trade. The Draft

2

Recovery Plan includes information about the species and provides objectives and actionsneeded to downlist, then delist the species. Recovery activities designed to achieve theseobjectives include; protecting known populations; searching for additional populations;performing outreach activities to educate the general public on the need for protection;establishing additional populations through reintroduction in the known range of the plant.Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure,self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's endangered speciesprogram. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare recovery plans formost of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considerednecessary for conservation of species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting them, andestimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed. The EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the development ofrecovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of aparticular species. Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and anopportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. TheService will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approvalof each new or revised recovery plan. The Service and other Federal agencies will also take thesecomments into account in the course of implementing recovery plans. The Star Cactus DraftRecovery Plan is being submitted for technical and agency review. After consideration ofcomments received during the review period, the recovery plan will be submitted for finalapproval.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service solicits written comments on the recovery plan described. All comments receivedby the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of the recovery plan.

Authority

The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

Dated: September 10, 2002.Bryan Arroyo,Acting Regional Director, Region 2.

3



Availability of Draft Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsulafor Review and Comment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability for publicreview of the Draft Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula.This recovery plan includes the endangered San Francisco lessingia (Lessingia germanorum) andRaven's manzanita (Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii). The portion of the plan dealing withRaven's manzanita is a revision of the 1984 Raven's Manzanita Recovery Plan. Additionalspecies of concern that will benefit from recovery actions taken for these plants are alsodiscussed in the draft recovery plan. The draft plan includes recovery criteria and measures forSan Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita.

DATES: Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before March 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft recovery plan are available for inspection, by appointment,during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, California(telephone (916) 414-6600). Requests for copies of the draft recovery plan and written commentsand materials regarding this plan should be addressed to Wayne S. White, Field Supervisor,Ecological Services, at the above Sacramento address. The draft recovery plan is also availableon the World Wide Web at http://www.r1.fws.gov/es/endsp.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Thomas, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above Sacramento address.


Background

Restoring endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are againsecure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of the Service'sendangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to preparerecovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describeactions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.r1.fws.gov/es/endsp.htm

4

or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measuresneeded. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires thedevelopment of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote theconservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act as amended in 1988 requires thatpublic notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recoveryplan development. The Service will consider all information presented during the publiccomment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. Substantive technicalcomments will result in changes to the plan. Substantive comments regarding recovery planimplementation may not necessarily result in changes to the recovery plan, but will be forwardedto appropriate Federal or other entities so that they can take these comments into account duringthe course of implementing recovery actions. Individual responses to comments will not beprovided. San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita are restricted to the San Francisco peninsula inSan Francisco County, California. San Francisco lessingia, an annual herb in the aster family, isrestricted to coastal sand deposits. Raven's manzanita is a rare evergreen creeping shrub in theheath family which was historically restricted to few scattered serpentine outcrops. Habitat loss,adverse alteration of ecological processes, and invasion of non-native plant species threaten SanFrancisco lessingia. Raven's manzanita has also been threatened by habitat loss; at present it isthreatened primarily by invasion of non-native vegetation and secondarily by disease organismsand poor reproductive success. The draft plan also makes reference to several other federallylisted species which are ecologically associated with San Francisco lessingia and Raven'smanzanita, but which are treated comprehensively in other recovery plans. These species arebeach layia (Layia carnosa), Presidio clarkia (Clarkia franciscana), Marin dwarf-flax(Hesperolinon congestum), Myrtle's silverspot butterfly (Speyere zerene myrtleae), and baycheckerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). In addition, 16 plant species of concern and17 plant species of local or regional conservation significance are considered in this recoveryplan. The draft recovery plan stresses re-establishing dynamic, persistent populations of SanFrancisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita within plant communities which have been restoredto be as ``self-sustaining'' as possible within urban wildland reserves. Specific recovery actionsfor San Francisco lessingia focus on the restoration and management of large, dynamic mosaicsof coastal dune areas supporting shifting populations within the species' narrow historic range.Recovery of Raven's manzanita will include, but will not be limited to, the strategy of the 1984Raven's Manzanita Recovery Plan, which emphasized the stabilization of the single remaininggenetic individual. The draft plan also seeks to re-establish multiple sexually reproducingpopulations of Raven's manzanita in association with its historically associated species of localserpentine outcrops. The objectives of this recovery plan are to delist San Francisco lessingia andto downlist Raven's manzanita through implementation of a variety of recovery measuresincluding: (1) Protection and restoration of a series of ecological reserves (often with mixedrecreational and conservation park land uses); (2) promotion of population increases of SanFrancisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita within these sites, or reintroduction of them torestored sites; (3) management of protected sites, especially the extensive eradication orsuppression of invasive dominant non-native vegetation; (4) research; and (5) publicparticipation, outreach, and education.

5

Public Comments Solicited

The Service solicits written comments on the recovery plan described. All comments receivedby the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of this plan.

Authority

The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

Dated: November 20, 2001.Steve Thompson,Acting California/Nevada Operations Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

F1SH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal Drive

Fort Snelling. MN 55111-4056

IN R£rLY R£FER TO:

FWS/AES/ESO

Notice of Availability of the Technical/Agency Draft Hine's Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana)

Recovery Plan for Review and Comment

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) invites your review of the enclosed draft of the recovery plan for

the Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana). The Service solicits any corrections or suggestions you or

your agency or group may offer and will carefully consider your comments. Your review is important to the

Service and must be received by September 13, 1999, as indicated in the enclosed Federal Register notice dated

July 13, 1999. Please send your comments to the Field Supervisor, Chicago, Ilinois, Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1000 Hart Road, Suite 180, Barrington, Ilinois 60010.

The Service seeks to ensure that the best biological and commercial data, scientifically accurate ana]yses of those

data, and re~ews of recognized experts are used in its recovery plans. It seeks to demonstrate to the public, other

agencies and interests, conservation organizations, and to units within the Service that the best data, scientific

ana]yses, and ~ews of affected or involved parties were considered in developing the document.

If you have questions or wish to discuss this draft, please contact John Rogner, Field Supervisor (847/381-2253,

extension 212), or Louise Clemency, Endangered Species Coordinator (extension 215), located at the Chicago,

lllinois, Field Office.

Thank yo u for your time and effort in pr oviding you r valuable as sistance.

Enclosures

Appendix U.

Notice of Availability of a Final Recovery Plan

50626 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

that the participant suffers from a physical or mental disability resulting in the permanent inability of the participant to perform the service or other activities which would be necessary to comply with the obligation.

(d) In determining whether to waive or suspend any or all of the service or payment obligations of a participant as imposing an undue hardship and being against equity and good conscience, the Secretary, on the basis of information and documentation as may be required, will consider:

(1) The participant’s present financial resources and obligations;

(2) The participant’s estimated future financial resources and obligations; and

(3) The extent to which the participant has problems of a personal nature, such as a physical or mental disability or terminal illness in the immediate family, which so intrude on the participant’s present and future ability to perform as to raise a presumption that the individual will be unable to perform the obligation incurred.

§ 68d.14 When can a GR–LRP payment obligation be discharged in bankruptcy?

Any payment obligation incurred under § 68d.12 may be discharged in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code only if such discharge is granted after the expiration of the five-year period beginning on the first date that payment is required and only if the bankruptcy court finds that a non-discharge of the obligation would be unconscionable.

§ 68d.15 Additional conditions.

When a shortage of funds exists, participants may be funded only partially, as determined by the Secretary. However, once a GR–LRP contract has been signed by both parties, the Secretary will obligate such funds as necessary to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to pay benefits for the duration of the period of obligated service unless, by mutual written agreement between the Secretary and the participant, specified otherwise. Benefits will be paid on a quarterly basis after each service period unless specified otherwise by mutual written agreement between the Secretary and the participant. The Secretary may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary.

§ 68d.16 What other regulations and statutes apply?

Several other regulations and statutes apply to this part. These include, but are not necessarily limited to:

(a) Debt Collection Act of 1982, Public Law 97–365, as amended (5 U.S.C. 5514);

(b) Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

(c) Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990, Public Law 101–647 (28 U.S.C. 1); and

(d) Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).

[FR Doc. 02–19610 Filed 8–2–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140–01–P



50 CFR Part 17

Notice of Availability of a Final Recovery Plan for the Howell’s Spectacular Thelypody (Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.ACTION: Notice of document availability.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of a final recovery plan for the Howell’s spectacular thelypody (Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis; thelypody). This threatened plant, a member of the mustard family, occurs on fewer than 12 small sites located within 100 acres of private lands near North Powder and Haines in eastern Oregon (Baker and Union Counties). The thelypody occurs in mesic, alkaline meadow habitats and all remaining populations occur within or directly adjacent to agricultural fields or urban areas. Actions needed for recovery include permanent protection of remaining populations and habitat, and management to provide for naturally reproducing populations that have stable or increasing trends.ADDRESSES: Recovery plans that have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are available on the World Wide Web at http://www.r1.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/default.htm. Recovery plans may also be obtained from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service, 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, (301) 429–6403 or 1–800–582–3421. The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johnna Roy, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709; phone (208) 378–5243.


Background Recovery of endangered or threatened

animals and plants is a primary goal of the our endangered species program. A species is considered recovered when the species’ ecosystem is restored and/or threats to the species are removed so that self-sustaining and self-regulating populations of the species can be supported as persistent members of native biotic communities. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the measures needed for recovery.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1988 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that recovery plans be developed for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that during recovery plan development, we provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment. Information presented during the comment period has been considered in the preparation of the final recovery plan, and is summarized in an appendix to the recovery plan. We will forward substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation to appropriate Federal or other entities so that they can take these comments into account during the course of implementing recovery actions.

The thelypody was listed as a threatened species on June 25, 1999. This taxon is endemic to the Baker-Powder River Valley in eastern Oregon. It is currently found in five populations in Baker and Union Counties, Oregon. It formerly also occurred in the Willow Creek Valley in Malheur County. The species grows in alkaline meadows in valley bottoms, usually in and around shrubs such as greasewood or rabbitbrush. The plants are threatened by habitat modification such as grazing during spring and early summer, trampling, urban development, and competition from non-native plants.

The objective of this plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of the thelypody so that protection by the Act is no longer necessary. As recovery criteria are met, the status of the species will be reviewed and it will be considered for removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR part 17). The Howell’s spectacular thelypody will be considered for delisting when: (1) At least five stable or increasing thelypody

VerDate Aug<2,>2002 16:58 Aug 02, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM pfrm12 PsN: 05AUP1

50627Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

populations are distributed throughout its extant or historic range and populations must be naturally reproducing with stable or increasing trends for 10 years; (2) all five populations are located on permanently protected sites; (3) management plans have been developed and implemented for each site that specifically provide for

the protection of thelypody and its habitat; and (4) a post-delisting monitoring plan is in place that will monitor the status of thelypody for at least 5 years at each site once it has been delisted.

Authority: The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533 (f).

Dated: June 3, 2002. Rowand W. Gould, Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.[FR Doc. 02–19624 Filed 8–2–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Jul<31>2002 09:25 Aug 02, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM 05AUP1

Appendix V. Linking Threats to Recovery Actions ( Table and Tip sheet).

LISTING

FACTOR

THREAT RECOVERY

CRITERIA

TASK NUMBERS

A Agricultural development and associatedhydrologic alterations

1, 3 Identify and control threats, discourage conversion of habitat, protectand restore floodplain hydrology, conduct research, secure funding forrecovery actions (see Tasks 1.6, 1.6.4, 1.6.5, 3, 6)

A Road construction and maintenance 1,3 Identify and control threats, manage herbicide use, conduct research (seeTasks 1.6, 1.6.6, 3)

C Livestock grazing 1,3 Manage livestock grazing , fence livestock areas, conduct research,secure funding for recovery actions (see Tasks 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 3)

D State ESA does not provide protection forplants on private lands and all thelypodypopulations are found on private lands

2, 3, 4 Survey and prioritize sites for protection, protect sites in the interim, andsecure permanent protection through easements and acquisition, identifyand protect unoccupied habitat sites, conduct research, secure fundingfor recovery actions (see Tasks 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.3, 4, 5, 6)

E Herbicide use 1,3 Identify and control threats, manage herbicide use conduct research,secure funding for recovery actions (see Tasks 1.6, 1.6.6, 3)

E Competition form non-native plants species 1,3,4 Identify and control threats, control non-native species invasion,conduct research, secure funding for recovery actions (see Tasks 1.6,1.6.3, 3, 3.4, 6)

E Naturally occurring events (drought/fire) 1,4 Conduct research, see Task 3

Listing Factors: A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment Of Its Habitat or Range B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, Educational Purposes (not a factor)C. Disease or Predation D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Recovery Criteria:1. At least five stable or increasing thelypody populations are distributed throughout its extant or historic range. Populations must be naturally reproducing with stable orincreasing trends for 10 years. 2. All five populations are located on permanently protected sites. Permanently protected sites are either owned by a State or Federal agency or aprivate conservation organization, or protected by a permanent conservation easement that commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the species.

3. Management plans have been developed and implemented for each site that specifically provide for the protection of the thelypody and its habitat.. A post-delisting monitoringplan is in place that will monitor the status of the thelypody for at least 5 years at each site.

Policy regarding controlled propogation of species listted ... · extinction of a species....

Documents

Transcript of Policy regarding controlled propogation of species listted ... · extinction of a species....