Endangered and Threatened Species; Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines
| Citation | 84 FR 18243 |
| Record Number | 2019-08656 |
| Published date | 30 April 2019 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18243-18259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XF282
Endangered and Threatened Species; Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce final revisions to the Recovery Plan
Preparation and Implementation Priorities and the Recovery Plans
sections of the 1990 Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines. The
revised guidelines prioritize limited agency resources to advance the
recovery of threatened and endangered species by focusing on the
immediacy of the species' overall extinction risk; the extent of
information regarding major threats; the extent to which major threats
are primarily under U.S. authority, jurisdiction, or influence; and the
certainty that management or protective actions can be implemented
successfully. We did not revise the Listing, Reclassification, and
Delisting Priorities section of the 1990 Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines. We determined those guidelines, which are repeated herein
(with minor editorial and format changes for consistency), are
sufficient to prioritize listing actions.
DATES: These guidelines are effective on May 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: These final guidelines are available on the internet at
https://www.federalregister.gov/ at Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2017-0020
and at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/endangered-species-act-guidance-policies-and-regulations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Somma, Endangered Species
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,
301-427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C.
1533(f)) requires the Secretary (as delegated to NMFS) to develop
recovery plans for all species listed pursuant to the ESA, unless he/
she finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the
species. ESA section 3(16) (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) defines a species to
include any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment (DPS) \1\ of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature. ESA section 4(h) (16 U.S.C.
1533(h)) requires NMFS to establish a system for developing and
implementing, on a priority basis, recovery plans under ESA section
4(f). The priority system applies to recovery plan preparation and
implementation for species listed as endangered or threatened under the
ESA unless we find that such a plan will not promote the conservation
of the species. We finalized guidance to prioritize recovery plan
development and implementation on June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24296). Through
our application of the 1990 guidelines, we determined that the Recovery
Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities and Recovery Plans
sections of the guidelines (see parts B and C, 55 FR 24296; June 15,
1990) contain vague descriptions and lack sufficient detail regarding
factors that should be considered when evaluating threats and recovery
potential. For these reasons, we proposed revisions to the guidelines
(82 FR 24944; May 31, 2017). Following review of public comments
received on the proposed revision and additional internal review, we
have revised the 1990 guidelines, as detailed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the policy recognizing DPSs (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), NMFS determined that evolutionarily significant units for
Pacific salmonids (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991) represent DPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes From the Proposed Guidelines
The final guidelines differ from our proposed guidelines (82 FR
24944; May 31, 2017) in three substantive respects:
First, we added two ``uncertain'' population trend categories for
assigning the severity of the species' demographic risk: (a) Uncertain-
likely decreasing, which is assigned a HIGH and MODERATE demographic
risk rank for endangered and threatened species, respectively; and (b)
uncertain-likely stable or increasing, which is assigned a MODERATE and
LOW demographic risk rank for endangered and threatened species,
respectively. See our response to comment 12 for details.
Second, in the proposed guidelines, the recovery priority numbers
ranged from 1 to 24. In the final guidelines, we simplify the numbering
scheme to assign the same priority number to several combinations of
the evaluation criteria based on total weights given to each criterion,
resulting in priority
[[Page 18244]]
numbers that range from 1 to 11. See our response to comment 28 for
details.
Third, we changed the broad application of the conflict criterion
to a case-by-case determination indicated by a `C' for conflict in
Table 4 (columns 5 and 6). See our response to comment 7 for details.
We also made a number of non-substantive and editorial changes to
the proposed guidelines, based on comments received and internal
review, as summarized in the remainder of this section.
We added a sentence in the background section to clarify that ``. .
. the priority system applies to recovery plans for species listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA unless we find that such a plan
will not promote the conservation of the species.'' See our response to
comment 19 for details.
We changed the title of ``Step 1. Identify a Demographic Risk
Category'' to ``Step 1. Identify a Demographic Risk Rank'' to more
accurately describe the action in that step.
We split the Decreasing/Unknown trend in Table 1 (82 FR 24946;
Table 3 herein) into two trends to clarify each should be considered
separately.
We changed the title of Table 2 (82 FR 24848; Table 4, herein) to
``Recovery Priority Plan Preparation and Implementation'' to reflect
the title of Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation
Priorities.
To the Recovery Potential Component 1 (Major Threats Well
Understood), we added to the description of the HIGH category the
sentence: ``Identification and knowledge of a species' response to any
one major threat would fit into this category.'' The addition is
intended to clarify that not all major threats must be well understood
to qualify for this category. We also added to the description of the
HIGH category the sentence: ``This can apply also to transnational or
foreign species where major threats occur beyond U.S. waters or the
high seas, but U.S. markets that contribute substantially to those
major threats have been identified and the species' responses to those
threats are well understood.'' The additional sentence illustrates
application of the component to plans for transnational and foreign
species. See our response to comment 19 for details. Finally, we added
a sentence to the description of the LOW TO MODERATE category: ``If no
major impacts exist, natural and man-made threats that have or are
believed to have less than a major impact on the species' ability to
persist also belong to this category'' to clarify that if no major
threats exist, then this category would apply. We added this sentence
to the LOW TO MODERATE categories for Recovery Potential Components 2
and 3 because it applies to all components.
To Recovery Potential Component 2 (U.S. Jurisdiction, Authority, or
Influence Exists for Management or Protective Actions to Address Major
Threats), we added to the description of the HIGH category the
sentence: ``This may also apply to transnational or foreign species
whose major threats include U.S. markets that represent a substantial
source of demand for the species, and the United States may be able to
influence the abatement of such demand.'' The additional sentence
illustrates application of the component to plans for transnational and
foreign species. See our response to comment 19 for details.
To Recovery Potential Component 3 (Certainty that Management or
Protective Actions will be Effective), we added language to the
description of the HIGH category to specify that demonstrated success
may include categories of actions that have proven effective for other
species, but may require further testing for the targeted species
(e.g., fishing gear modifications, methods to overcome or modify
barriers to fish passage). See our response to comment 26 for details.
To Step 4: Assign Recovery Action Priority, we changed the title to
``Assign Recovery Plan Action Priority'' to indicate that actions
within a recovery plan may be broader than those actions taken to
achieve recovery. We added ``Recovery'' to priority numbers 1, 2, and 3
to clarify these actions are taken to achieve recovery. We added
`research' to the description for recovery action number 3 to clarify
that research actions can also be in this category. We added the
sentence: ``In assigning sub-priorities within a category, recovery
actions that benefit multiple species and/or are likely to yield faster
results that are sustainable should be given the highest priority,
e.g., Priority 1a versus Priority 1c.'' The additional sentence
clarifies that recovery actions that may benefit multiple species
should be given priority over others that are within the same recovery
priority category. See our response to comments 34 and 35 for details.
Finally, we deleted Table 3 (82 FR 24949) because the narrative for
assigning recovery plan action priorities was more informative than the
table.
To the Process for Applying Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and
Implementation Priorities, we added the following text to clarify how
to prioritize when multiple species are being considered together in
the recovery planning process: ``The lead NMFS Region or Headquarters
will prioritize species within their jurisdiction according to the
following factors. Where a recovery plan covers multiple species, the
highest ranked species should dictate the priority for recovery plan
preparation and implementation. For example, if a recovery plan covers
species A assigned a recovery priority number 1 and species B assigned
a recovery priority number 8, species A would dictate the recovery plan
preparation priority. Implementation of recovery actions within the
plan would also be prioritized for species A where recovery actions are
assigned the same priority numbers (e.g., recovery actions assigned
priority number 1 for species A would be given a priority over recovery
actions assigned priority number 1 for species B).''
Under Definitions, we made the following changes:
1. We deleted the definitions for ``threatened species,''
``endangered species,'' and ``foreseeable future.'' See our response to
comment 37 for details;
2. We changed the definition of ``depensation'' to: ``A decline in
productivity in a population as the abundance declines that can result
in increased extinction risk due to factors such as the uncertainty
that mates will be able to find one another, randomly skewed sex
ratios, changes to predator behavior to shifting prey abundance, or
scaling effects of random variation among individuals.'' See our
response to comment 39 for details;
3. We added a definition of ``productivity'' from the NMFS' 2017
Guidance on Responding to Petitions and Conducting Status Reviews under
the Endangered Species Act: ``The population growth rate, over the
entire life cycle. Factors that affect population growth rate provide
information on how well a population is ``performing.'' These
parameters, and related trends in abundance, reflect conditions that
drive a population's dynamics and thus determine its abundance. Changes
in environmental conditions, including ecological interactions, can
influence a population's intrinsic productivity, the environment's
capacity to support a population, or both. Such changes may result from
random environmental variation over a wide range of temporal scales
(environmental stochasticity). A population growth rate that is
unstable or declining over a long period of time indicates poor
resiliency to future environmental change.'' See our response to
comment 42 for details.
[[Page 18245]]
Summary of Comments and Responses
The notice announcing the proposed revision (82 FR 24944; May 31,
2017) requested public comment through June 30, 2017. We received
several requests to extend the public comment period, which we extended
through August 28, 2017 (82 FR 29841; June 30, 2017). We received 10
comment letters from the public, tribes, states, nongovernmental
organizations, and one federal agency. Comments included support for
the revision to the guidelines, minor clarifying edits, and substantive
comments. We considered all substantive information and comments
provided during the comment period, and where appropriate, incorporated
them directly into these final guidelines or addressed them below.
Comments received were grouped by topic or applicable section of the
proposed guidelines. Comments and our responses are presented below.
Comments not relevant to the guidelines are not discussed.
General to the Proposed Guidelines
Comment (1): Several commenters felt that the subjective nature of
the proposed guidelines would hinder NMFS' ability to be more effective
at recovery planning and implementation. One commenter acknowledged the
subjective nature of the priority guidelines and recommended that NMFS
regional offices seek concurrence with NMFS Headquarters on priority
determinations to ensure consistency of application.
Response: We acknowledge that the revised priority guidelines are
subjective, as are the 1990 guidelines. Professional knowledge and
judgement must be used, in part, when making decisions about resource
priorities for recovery plan development and implementation. In the
revised guidelines, we clarify terms and provide greater detail to
guide decision-makers. We disagree with the comment that NMFS regional
offices should seek NMFS Headquarters concurrence on priority
determinations because it places an unnecessary administrative burden
on staff. However, NMFS Headquarters is always available to consult,
upon request, with a regional office on issues such as prioritization
of high-profile species. And NMFS Headquarters does review the priority
determinations every 2 years as part of the report to Congress (ESA
section 4(f)(3)) on NMFS' efforts to develop and implement recovery
plans and the status of listed species. As part of that review process,
we examine how the priority numbers are assigned and address any
apparent inconsistencies in priority numbers across species.
Comment (2): One commenter felt NMFS should take a broader approach
beyond prioritizing the order in which recovery planning is conducted
for certain species. The commenter felt the broader approach should
focus on delisting the species and rely on states, local governments,
or other entities who are willing to fund or conduct activities that
will promote recovery. The commenter stated that NMFS must recognize
the important role these non-federal partners have in achieving
recovery of listed species and prioritize the recovery planning for
species where there are such partners who will contribute to the
effort.
Response: We agree that a broad approach to recovery is necessary.
NMFS recognizes the important role of partnerships in achieving
recovery, and we have developed other guidance and policies that embody
the concept of partnerships. For example, the cornerstone of the
Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Planning Guidance
(NMFS and FWS 2010) focuses on how to build partnerships. We also
recognize that a recovery plan must be implemented to achieve results.
Communication, coordination, and collaboration with a wide variety of
potential stakeholders is essential to the acceptance and
implementation of recovery plans. State agencies, because of their
legal authorities and their close working relationships with local
governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist the NMFS
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Services) in recovering listed
species.
Comment (3): One commenter recommended that NMFS expand the
guidelines to explain whether and, if so, how the priority for
developing and implementing a recovery plan to conserve multiple
species or ecosystem-based plans would be different than if plans were
developed and implemented separately for those species.
Response: NMFS does not intend to prioritize development and
implementation of multi-species or ecosystem recovery plans over
single-species plans. Single-species plans may often result in benefits
to more than one listed species (e.g., sea turtles) either directly or
through improved ecosystem functions. A single-species recovery plan
does not necessarily equate to fewer benefits compared to a multi-
species or ecosystem plan. The guidelines specify where a recovery plan
covers multiple species, the highest ranked species should dictate the
priority for recovery plan preparation and implementation. However, we
agree that when prioritizing individual recovery actions within a plan,
direct and indirect benefits to other species should be considered (see
our response to comment 34).
Comment (4): One commenter stated that the proposed priority
guidelines would result in assigning a lower recovery priority number
to species whose demographic risk category improves. The commenter felt
this prioritization system was contrary to the goal of delisting a
species.
Response: We acknowledge that the priority guidelines, which place
the greatest weight on a species' demographic risk, could potentially
result in lower priority numbers as a species' risk condition improves
over time. An improved demographic condition is likely the result of
implementing effective management or protective actions that address
the threats affecting such condition. In such a case, all three
components of the species' Recovery Potential might be assigned a HIGH
category. Thus, a species that goes from a HIGH to a LOW demographic
risk could still be assigned a relatively high number on the recovery
priority scale (see Table 2 in 82 FR 24948; Table 4, herein). We
concluded that the balance between the demographic risk and the three
recovery potential components allows for sustaining a focused recovery
program to achieve delisting.
Comment (5): One commenter requested that NMFS explore including
the evolutionary significance of the species (i.e., monotypic genus,
species, subspecies, distinct population segment (DPS)) when setting
recovery priorities in order to preserve genetic diversity. The
commenter noted that without consideration of taxonomic hierarchy, the
guidelines might bias priorities toward DPSs or subspecies, which
generally occupy more restricted ranges than full species and, as a
result, might face threats that are more localized and easier to
identify or remedy.
Response: Assigning a lower priority to a subspecies or DPS may not
result in saving as much genetic diversity as possible, as the
commenter proposes. For example, when a DPS is listed, the Services
must determine its importance to the taxon to which it belongs, in
order to address Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs
be used ``. . . sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of
genetic diversity (61 FR 4722; February 2, 1996). Further, NMFS policy
(56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991) requires that a population must
represent an important component of
[[Page 18246]]
the evolutionary legacy of a species in order to be considered an
Evolutionarily Significant Unit, which is equivalent to a DPS (61 FR
4722; February 2, 1996). Therefore, the importance of conserving
genetic diversity is clearly a driver in determining whether to list a
DPS or not; if a DPS is listed, it follows that it is listed, in part,
because it will conserve genetic diversity of the biological species.
We acknowledge that the three components of the recovery potential
criteria may result in prioritizing recovery plan development and
implementation for listed entities with a restricted range over those
with broader ranges encompassing multiple geopolitical boundaries.
However, we stress that the guidelines provide for prioritizing far-
ranging species. For example, Recovery Potential Component 2 considers
international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions, and agreements)
and allows a HIGH category for transnational species that spend only a
portion of their life cycle in U.S. waters, but whose major threats can
be addressed by U.S. actions during that portion of their life cycle.
We were unable to identify alternatives to the Recovery Potential
Components that would provide more balance for those species with
broader or global ranges without making prioritizing one species over
another more difficult and less transparent regarding which attributes
were being considered as more important.
Comment (6): One commenter felt that life histories of species
might affect their priority ranking under the proposed criteria. For
example, a so-called r-selected species might be able to recover
quickly once threats to its survival have been removed. On the other
hand, K-selected species, such as marine mammals, that have lower
reproductive potential but higher survival, may take decades or even
centuries to recover. The commenter felt that recovery options for some
marine mammal species might be limited.
Response: We disagree that the priority guidelines bias toward
certain life history traits. In assigning a demographic risk, the
severity of the condition for productivity, spatial distribution,
diversity, and abundance is considered. We acknowledge that a species'
life history trait may make it more vulnerable to a particular
demographic risk but the threats and the species' response to those
threats may vary greatly across taxa. In assigning recovery potential,
the time it takes for a species to respond to a major threat is not a
factor.
Comment (7): One commenter supported considering the conflict
criterion to be met for all listed species under NMFS jurisdiction, as
was proposed. However, several commenters were concerned by what they
described as NMFS eliminating the conflict criterion in the proposed
priority guidelines. They recommended that NMFS retain and expand the
conflict criterion to consider variations in the scope (global,
regional, or local), nature (direct or indirect), and degree of
potential conflicts between listed species and economic-related
activities. One commenter recommended that, where appropriate, NMFS
should ensure that it clearly identifies and explains the magnitude of
risk or conflict with economic activity and identifies recovery
measures that facilitate species conservation while ensuring that
economic activities can continue.
Response: To clarify, NMFS did not propose to eliminate the
conflict criterion. The ESA specifically calls for considering the role
of construction, other development projects, and other forms of
economic activity in setting recovery priorities. Rather, we proposed
to apply the criterion to all species based on the current and likely
future condition that all listed species under our jurisdiction are
either directly or indirectly in conflict to some degree with an
economic activity (82 FR 24945). We are unaware of any ESA-listed
species under our authority that is not considered, either directly or
indirectly, to be in conflict to some degree with an economic activity.
However, we agree with the commenters that the application of conflict
is better applied on a case-by-case basis. We added a `C' for conflict
in Table 4. This is consistent with FWS' Endangered and Threatened
Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines (48 FR 43098;
September 21, 1983). We considered including variations in the scope
(global, regional, or local), nature (direct or indirect), and degree
of potential conflicts between listed species and economic-related
activities, but rejected it because we were unable to determine how to
incorporate these variations across all taxa given that a species'
exposure and response to the same economic activity can vary greatly.
Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities: Step
1. Identify a Demographic Risk Category
Comment (8): One commenter felt that the inclusion of a demographic
risk assessment would not meaningfully improve the recovery planning
process. The commenter stated that a listed species would presumably
exhibit one of these demographic risk conditions, either presently or
in the foreseeable future, by nature of it being listed. To the extent
that these risk conditions already are captured by the species' listing
status, the commenter stated they do not further inform the priority
ranking process or allow for ranking distinctions within the endangered
or threatened classifications.
Response: We determined that the demographic risk category was an
important element to consider when prioritizing recovery plan
development and implementation. While a status review provides the best
available science on a species' extinction risk at the time of listing,
the available scientific information may evolve rapidly post-listing.
We also recognize that not all listed endangered or threatened species
exhibit similar demographic conditions and trends. The inclusion of the
demographic risk category allows identification of the worst-case
scenario for each demographic factor: Productivity, spatial
distribution, diversity, and abundance. This approach allows us to
focus attention on those species exhibiting the most severe demographic
conditions (e.g., small, fragmented populations).
Comment (9): One commenter mistakenly thought an endangered species
could be assigned a LOW category for demographic risk. The commenter
felt that such assignment might create a misunderstanding given the ESA
definition of an endangered species. The commenter recommended some
other categorization scheme such as ``extremely critical, critical, and
stable or increasing.''
Response: The priority guidelines only allow a LOW category for
demographic risk to be assigned to a threatened species and not an
endangered species (82 FR 24926). An endangered species may be assigned
a MODERATE category if it does not meet any of the adverse risk
conditions for the demographic risk categories and its population trend
is stable, increasing, or uncertain--likely stable or increasing (Table
3, herein). The uncertain population trend is a new category added to
the final guidelines. See our response to comment 12 for details.
Comment (10): One commenter was concerned about the proposed
inclusion of the term ``substantially'' when considering mixed
population trends in assigning a demographic risk category. The
commenter characterized the term as ``substantially increase the listed
entity's extinction risk'' and claimed the language to be vague and
subject to
[[Page 18247]]
arbitrary interpretation that could lead to inappropriately excluding
declining populations from consideration, for example, due to political
pressures or higher costs of recovery for those populations.
Response: To clarify, the priority guideline language for mixed
populations is if key populations are declining such that their
continued decline would contribute substantially to the listed entity
achieving the adverse risk conditions described in Table 1 (82 FR
24946). The priority guidelines are not an extinction risk analysis, as
that analysis was conducted to support the decision to list the
species. Rather, the priority guidelines are meant to guide the
decision-maker in assigning a demographic risk category in the event
that a listed entity exhibits mixed trends among key populations. The
test is whether key populations' decline would lead the listed entity
to being at or below depensation; limited or fragmented in spatial
distribution to a level that renders the listed entity vulnerable to
catastrophe; low in genetic and phenotypic diversity to a degree that
the listed entity is severely limited in adaptive potential; or
exhibiting only one, or a few, small population(s) or subpopulations.
We recognize that the term ``substantially'' can be subjective, but the
adverse risk conditions described in Table 1 (82 FR 24296; Table 3
herein) are founded on conservation biology principles (for example,
see McElhany et al. 2000). We find the term ``substantially'' (i.e.,
considerably or to a large extent) adequately describes the relative
contribution of key populations to the listed entity's ability to avoid
the adverse risk conditions described in Table 1 (82 FR 24296; Table 3
herein).
Comment (11): Several commenters recommended that a HIGH
demographic risk rank be assigned to a threatened species to prevent it
from becoming endangered. One commenter felt that we should prioritize
first on recovery potential and second on demographic risk. As
proposed, the commenter pointed out that, if a threatened species
scores high on all recovery potential components, the highest recovery
priority it can achieve is Recovery Priority number 4. The commenter
stated that this outcome seems inconsistent with the goal of the
guideline revision to ``better prioritize limited agency resources to
advance the recovery of threatened and endangered species.'' The
commenter felt it prudent to invest limited resources toward recovery
planning for species that would benefit, regardless of their listed
status.
Response: We based the proposed guideline revision on the
underlying principle that endangered species are a higher priority than
threatened species because of the immediacy of the extinction risk,
with endangered species being presently in danger of extinction. We
determined that this approach was rational and appropriate because it
focuses limited resources on species with a high extinction risk. We
also do not agree that limiting a threatened species to a MODERATE
demographic risk rank would increase its extinction risk. A threatened
species with a HIGH recovery potential in all three components could
potentially be assigned a Recovery Priority number 4 (out of 24) in the
proposed and a number 3 in the final guidelines (out of 11; see our
response to comment 28), which would allow limited agency resources to
address those species whose demographic risk may not be high, but whose
recovery potential is high. In addition, with regard to prioritizing
recovery plan implementation, the endangered or threatened category may
be applied to a species currently not listed as such if NMFS has
recommended a reclassification through a 5-year review or proposed rule
(see footnote to Table 1 in 82 FR 24296; Table 3 herein).
Comment (12): One commenter felt that an unknown population trend
should not default to the highest prioritization. The commenter
recommended that an unknown population trend be categorized as MODERATE
and LOW for endangered and threatened species, respectively.
Response: An unknown population abundance trend was grouped with
the decreasing trend as a caution to conserve the species in light of
the lack of data. Unknown is defined as when a species has fewer than 3
data points over a 10-year period or all available data years to
estimate trends. However, we recognize that there may be species for
which some data are available to indicate the direction of the trend,
but the data are uncertain. Uncertain is when the species has 3 or more
data points over a 10-year period or all available data years, but
there is great uncertainty over data quality to estimate trends. To
differentiate these cases from truly unknown trend cases, we added two
``uncertain'' categories: (a) Uncertain--likely decreasing, which is
assigned a HIGH and MODERATE for endangered and threatened species,
respectively; and (b) uncertain--likely stable or increasing, which is
assigned demographic risk ranks of MODERATE and LOW for endangered and
threatened species, respectively.
Comment (13): One commenter recommended NMFS use generations rather
than a set number of years in determining the population trend. Another
commenter recommended NMFS include an assessment of whether a
fluctuation in population is temporary (and may self-correct) or is
indicative of a long-term trend, and prioritize species accordingly.
Response: In order to use generations to determine population
trend, we would need to have sufficient data to determine the
generation time for each taxa or each species. We recognize that our
species vary widely in generation length. To the extent possible, we
analyze the data for each species taking into account their unique life
history, including generation time. The population trend measure is
intended to indicate more of a medium-to long-term trend, and not
temporary fluctuations in population. We have added a trend category of
`UNCERTAIN' to indicate when there is great uncertainty over data
quality to estimate trends.
Comment (14): One commenter recommended that NMFS develop a
definition for the term ``measurably'' as used in the population trend
to describe either higher or lower numbers between assessments, or that
a more precise term (statistically significant) should be used.
Response: The term ``statistically significant'' would be too
limiting for the purposes of the priority guidelines. In many cases, we
do not have adequate data on population trends to determine statistical
significance. Rather, the common term ``measurably'' indicates that the
data points across the years are noticeably different and can be
measured, without the need for a formal definition. We concluded that
this term was adequate for the purposes of assessing a population trend
in Step 1.
Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities: Step
2. Identify Categories of Recovery Potential: Recovery Potential
Component 1: Major Threats Well Understood
Comment (15): Several commenters felt that cases where only minimal
data was needed to fill knowledge gaps on major threats should not be
given priority over cases where data needs are substantial. They
stressed this approach may contribute to putting some species in a
negative feedback loop that hinders recovery. One commenter felt that
assigning a lower priority to cases where major threats are not well
understood was inconsistent with the recovery action priorities, which
recognize research as an important component to achieving recovery.
They recommended
[[Page 18248]]
that a HIGH category be assigned to species for which research is
needed to fill knowledge gaps about major threats or effectiveness of
management or protective actions (Recovery Potential Component 3:
Certainty that Management or Protective Actions will be Effective).
Response: The priority guidelines are meant to prioritize recovery
plan development and implementation. The priority guidelines logically
place a higher priority on those species where sufficient information
regarding major threats exists, because in order to identify effective
management or protective actions we need to understand the threats that
affect the species' ability to persist. Once a recovery plan is
developed, the implementation of research actions to address knowledge
gaps potentially can be given a recovery action priority 1 to identify
those actions that must be taken to prevent extinction. We do not view
this as an inconsistency between the Recovery Potential criteria and
the Recovery Action criteria. Rather, through recovery plan
implementation, the recovery priority guidelines are meant to encourage
collection of data and evaluate progress. As more information is
gathered about threats and effectiveness of management and protective
actions, the species moves up the priority scale by improving the
recovery potential.
Comment (16): One commenter agreed with the HIGH category for
species with minimal data gaps, but recommended the HIGH category also
include situations where missing data can be secured with reasonable
effort.
Response: We concluded that incorporation of situations where
missing data can be secured with ``reasonable effort'' was difficult to
define and evaluate given that multiple variables (e.g., funding,
partners, and research methods) could contribute to whether such effort
was reasonable.
Comment (17): One commenter felt that NMFS' proposal to make a
ranking distinction based on whether the natural or man-made threat has
been identified and whether the species' responses to these threats are
well understood was inappropriate. The commenter stated this
determination is already made by NMFS as part of the decision on
whether to list the species. The commenter felt that if NMFS lacks the
requisite data on identifiable threats or the species' response to
those threats in the recovery potential context, the species should not
have been listed as a threshold matter.
Response: The assessment described in the proposed priority
guidelines is not equivalent to the risk assessment conducted to
develop a listing determination. The priority guidelines are based on
whether threats that have a major impact on a species' ability to
persist have been identified, and whether the species' response to
those particular threats is well understood. This allows us to focus,
as a priority, on those threats that are known to have a major impact
on the species. In making a listing determination, the species'
vulnerability, exposure, and biological response to all threats are
considered. A listing assessment thus considers the entire suite of
threats, including any cumulative effects from multiple threats, and is
not based on identification or consideration of just the major or the
most serious threats. In addition, a listing decision is based on
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species.'' In making a listing determination, we are
required to rely on the best available scientific and commercial data.
The available data may not allow us to distinguish or even identify
which particular threat or threats pose the greatest risk to the
species, nor are we required to do so in order to make a listing
determination. The question is whether the species is in danger of
extinction or is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. For prioritizing recovery plan development and implementation,
we can, however, generally rely on the listing assessment to identify
the major threats to the particular species.
Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities: Step
2. Identify Categories of Recovery Potential: Recovery Potential
Component 2: U.S. Jurisdiction, Authority, or Influence Exists To
Address Major Threats
Comment (18): One commenter felt that Recovery Potential Component
2 should be combined with Recovery Potential Component 3 (Certainty
that Management or Protective Actions will be Effective) because they
are sufficiently related, and this combination would simplify the
guidelines.
Response: We agree that, as a general matter, U.S. jurisdiction,
authority, or influence may affect the certainty that actions will be
effective. However, there may be novel or experimental actions that are
less certain to be effective, regardless of jurisdiction. Prioritizing
recovery efforts based on effectiveness of actions both beyond and
within U.S. jurisdiction is an important aspect to achieving recovery.
We concluded that the two components are sufficiently distinct and
should be considered separately.
Comment (19): Several commenters requested clarification on exactly
what Recovery Potential Component 2 addresses; i.e., is it to identify
situations when a plan for a foreign species should be prepared, to set
priorities for transnational species that occur within areas subject to
the jurisdiction of both the United States and other countries, to set
priorities for species that occur on the high seas, or some combination
of these?
Response: The priority guidelines address only those species for
which a recovery plan will be or has been developed, not making a
determination that development of a recovery plan would not promote the
conservation of the species. We added language to the Background
section on the scope of the priority scheme to clarify this point. We
consider many factors in our finding that a recovery plan would not
promote the conservation of the species. For example, there may be
instances where effective international agreements, conventions, or
treaties do not exist, or the United States does not or cannot
participate in partnerships that would promote the conservation of
transnational species, and the other range countries or international
organizations are not interested in engaging in joint recovery efforts.
Thus, in this instance, the species would not have a recovery plan
developed and these guidelines would not apply. We added language to
Recovery Potential 2 and Recovery Potential 1 (Major Threats are Well
Understood) to include considerations applicable to transnational and
foreign species where a recovery plan has been or will be developed.
Comment (20): One commenter requested examples of where a LOW TO
MODERATE category would be applied under Recovery Potential Component
2, for developing a recovery plan for foreign species.
Response: The purpose of this criterion is to prioritize based on
the United States' ability to take management and protective actions to
address major threats. Examples of species that occur only partly
within U.S. jurisdiction include sea turtles, large whales, and some
anadromous fish. It is not possible to provide a definite example of a
LOW TO MODERATE categorization because that evaluation must be
conducted during the prioritization process based on all information
available at the time. Nonetheless, we can provide an
[[Page 18249]]
illustration of how the process could work. Olive ridley sea turtles
(Lepidocheyls olivacea) range throughout temperate regions worldwide,
and these turtles face threats within U.S. waters, on the high seas,
and in foreign countries. NMFS would evaluate the degree to which the
United States has jurisdiction, authority, or influence to address
impacts of major threats to these turtles. A LOW TO MODERATE category
could be assigned if threats within U.S. waters are minor, and major
threats that are under the jurisdiction of foreign nations cannot be
effectively addressed through any international mechanism to which the
United States is a party or can otherwise influence.
Comment (21): Several commenters requested clarification on the
difference between ``jurisdiction,'' ``authority,'' and ``influence.''
One commenter felt that it was unclear what the United States can or
might be able to influence, with respect to extra-jurisdictional
species. To the extent possible, the commenter requested additional
guidance concerning these terms. For example, is the term ``influence''
intended to apply exclusively to the U.S. Government, or would it also
apply to influence exerted by U.S. businesses or non-governmental
organizations?
Response: In the second criterion for assessing recovery potential,
we use the term ``authority'' in terms of legal authority, with a
meaning very similar to ``jurisdiction.'' But because ``jurisdiction''
is a more technical term and can be used more narrowly, such as when
describing the scope of judicial power, we included both terms to
convey our intent to consider the full reach of U.S. governmental
powers or control to implement management or protective actions. Our
inclusion of the term ``influence'' is different. There we are
describing the extent to which the United States may indirectly
facilitate management or protective actions being put in place. For
example, through its contacts with foreign governments that could
further conservation of the species, the United States may at times be
able to persuade those governments to adopt conservation practices
affecting species on the high seas, even if the U.S. Government has no
direct power over the species or its habitat.
Comment (22): One commenter was concerned that Recovery Potential
Component 2 was limited to considering only existing international
mechanisms as proposed. The commenter claimed that the limitation was
contrary to section 8 of the ESA, which directs the Secretary, along
with the Secretary of State, to encourage foreign countries to provide
for the conservation of listed species and to enter into bilateral or
multilateral agreements to provide for such conservation. The commenter
requested that NMFS include consideration of additional potential
agreements or other mechanisms that the United States could enter into
and that would be effective in abating the risk to the species.
Response: We acknowledge that ESA section 8(b) calls for the
Secretary, through the Secretary of State to, among other things,
encourage entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements with
foreign countries to provide for species conservation. However, it
would be too speculative to base recovery priorities on the possibility
of future agreements where the countries involved along with provisions
and processes for addressing threats have yet to be developed. The
priority guidelines do not implicate our responsibilities under ESA
section 8--rather, the priority guidelines assist in prioritizing
efforts where they will be more effective at recovering species.
Through our efforts under ESA section 8(b), should additional
agreements be identified and entered into, then those would be
considered under this component.
Comment (23): Several commenters were concerned that the proposed
language regarding how to assess climate threats might allow NMFS to
de-prioritize species impacted by climate change unless local
management actions can help the species. The commenters requested the
climate threats language be clarified so that species for which climate
change is a major threat are classified as high priority because the
United States has the ability to decrease local as well as global
climate change impacts through U.S. greenhouse gas mitigation and
climate adaption actions.
Response: Where climate change impacts are a major threat and
actions to abate the threat are global, the priority guidelines assume
that the global management or protective actions are not primarily
under U.S. authority, jurisdiction, or influence to abate major threats
through existing international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions,
and agreements). We conclude this assumption is logical because of the
scale and complexity of addressing global climate change. We consider
U.S. activities undertaken to address greenhouse gas mitigation and
climate adaption to be management or protective actions that would help
offset global climate change impacts.
Comment (24): One commenter felt that the guidelines' language
regarding how to assess climate threats implies that NMFS will place
the needs of the species secondary to actions that offset climate
change impacts. The commenter declared that given the large
uncertainties associated with climate change, this climate priority
factor is simply inconsistent with the better logic of focusing
recovery on known, manageable threats where recovery actions are more
effective.
Response: We disagree that the guidelines' language regarding how
to assess climate threats de-prioritizes focus of recovery on known,
manageable threats where recovery actions may be more effective. The
language acknowledges that the United States may have jurisdiction,
authority, or influence to address local threats that offset climate
impacts despite a lack of jurisdiction, authority, or influence to
address the impacts of climate change globally. For example, the
recovery plan for elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) and staghorn coral
(A. cervicornis) identifies reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations as a high priority recovery strategy (NMFS 2015).
However, the recovery plan calls for simultaneous local threat
reductions and mitigation strategies, including reduced chronic or
localized mortality sources (predation, anthropogenic physical damage,
acute sedimentation, nutrients, and contaminants). The language in the
guidelines will allow NMFS to consider these locally known and
manageable threats when assigning a HIGH or LOW TO MODERATE category.
By prioritizing species for which the United States can abate local
threats to offset global impacts of climate change, we are better able
to advance recovery for these vulnerable species.
Comment (25): One commenter recommended the priority guidelines be
expanded to include a temporal component for addressing climate change
and similar threats, such that recovery actions that may take a long
time to bear fruit, but that nevertheless are important to species
recovery, are given high priority regardless of whether they are
directed at endangered or threatened species.
Response: We disagree that a temporal component to address climate
change and similar threats is necessary to prioritize recovery plan
development and implementation appropriately. The priority guidelines
allow for an assessment of major threats regardless of timing. The
recovery potential criteria are the extent to which major threats are
understood; whether the United States has jurisdiction, authority, or
influence to address major threats; and the relative certainty that
management or protective actions to address major threats will be
[[Page 18250]]
effective. Management or protective actions assessed under these
criteria could yield results across different periods and will likely
vary greatly depending on the action and the species. We determined
that an assessment of the recovery potential based on the timing of a
species' response to abatement of a particular major threat should be
done on a case-by-case basis.
Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities: Step
2. Identify Categories of Recovery Potential: Recovery Potential
Component 3: Certainty That Management or Protective Actions Will Be
Effective
Comment (26): Several commenters were concerned that species
requiring novel or experimental protective actions will be scored too
low under the proposed recovery plan priorities. One commenter cited
additional gear research for reducing entanglement-related mortality
for North Atlantic right whales and fish passage across dams as novel
or experimental.
Response: In developing the criteria, we identified certain
attributes that should place a species higher on the priority list.
Management and protective actions that are less certain to achieve
recovery goals are a lower priority over actions that are known to be
effective because the costs (e.g., funding, staff, and monitoring)
incurred may not realize the same benefits as those actions that are
known to be effective at achieving recovery goals. However, the
priority guidelines do not relieve NMFS of the responsibility to
undertake recovery efforts, which may include experimental actions, for
listed species. Rather, the priority guidelines help target limited
resources in an efficient manner so that recovery goals can be met.
Once a plan has been developed, the priority guidelines allow NMFS to
prioritize research actions to fill knowledge gaps and identify
management actions necessary to prevent extinction, thereby improving
the certainty that a management or protective action will be effective.
We added language to the description of the HIGH category for Recovery
Potential Component 3 to explain that demonstrated success may include
categories of actions that have proven effective for other species, but
may require further testing for the targeted species (e.g., fishing
gear modifications, methods to overcome or modify barriers to fish
passage).
Comment (27): One commenter recommended that NMFS add
``economically feasible'' and ``capable of timely implementation'' to
the criterion for effectiveness of management or protective actions.
The commenter also recommended that NMFS add a recovery potential
component that assigns priority based on the degree of certainty
associated with the implementation of management or protective actions
(e.g., existing partners willing to take action). The commenter felt
that while technical feasibility is an important consideration, without
a corresponding assessment of economic feasibility and timeliness and
certainty of implementation, there is no way to fully assess the
certainty of whether a particular action will be effective.
Response: We considered whether to include economic feasibility
when developing the criterion, but rejected it because the ESA calls
for giving priority for recovery plan development to those species that
are most likely to benefit from a plan, (which includes because they
are in conflict with economic activity such as construction and other
development projects), not based on broader economic considerations. In
addition, inclusion of economic feasibility in the prioritization would
introduce a factor not considered in the listing decision and may move
us further away from the recovery goal to delist the species. We also
considered inclusion of timeliness and degree of certainty of
implementation, but rejected it because of the uncertainty in being
able to evaluate timeliness and implementation, which are influenced by
many factors (e.g., ready partners, funding, and opportunity).
Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities: Step
3. Assign Recovery Priority Number for Plan Preparation and
Implementation
Comment (28): One commenter recommended that the assessment
framework be simplified to capture the severity of the demographic risk
within the context of the potential and immediacy of conservation
measures for the species.
Response: The priority guidelines provide a balance between
consideration of the severity of the species' demographic risk and the
species' potential for recovery. The assessment of recovery potential
encompasses evaluation of whether major threats are well understood;
abatement of major threats is under U.S. jurisdiction, authority, or
influence; and there is certainty that management and protective
actions will be effective. As such, this assessment inherently
considers whether conservation measures would be effective for
recovering the species. However, we do agree that the recovery priority
numbering scheme described in the proposed guidance can be simplified.
To develop the proposed table of recovery priority numbers, we used a
spreadsheet to assign numerical weights to the criteria in descending
order of importance: (1) Demographic risk, (2) extent to which major
threats are understood, (3) whether management or protective actions
are under U.S. jurisdiction, authority, or ability to influence the
abatement of major threats, and (4) certainty that management or
protective actions will be effective. The values assigned for the
numerical weights reflected the relative order of importance, with a
higher numerical weight assigned to the demographic risk and so forth
in descending order based on the stated order of importance (82 FR
24947). Summing the total of those numerical weights for each
combination of criteria rankings resulted in a number of ties,
depending on the combination of HIGH, MODERATE, LOW, or LOW TO MODERATE
categories assigned to the criteria. To break the ties, we sorted the
tied rows based on the rankings of the individual criteria in the same
descending order of importance. For example, in the proposed
guidelines, a HIGH demographic risk in combination with a HIGH for two
of the three recovery potential components was assigned Recovery
Priority Number 3; whereas a MODERATE demographic risk in combination
with a HIGH for all three recovery potential components was assigned
Recovery Priority Number 4. In this particular example, the criteria
combination with a HIGH demographic risk was assigned a higher priority
number than the combination with a MODERATE demographic risk given that
this criterion was considered of greatest relative importance. In
essence, we weighted the criteria twice to ensure the recovery priority
numbers were unique for any one combination of rankings assigned to the
criteria. Upon further evaluation, we determined that a simpler and
more transparent prioritization scheme would be to assign the same
priority number to rows with any combination of ranked criteria having
the same total weights. Thus for the above example, the final
guidelines assign Recovery Priority Number 3 to both rows (see Table 4
herein). We concluded that this approach, which results in a more
limited, but sufficient, range of recovery priority numbers, best
reflects the stated order of importance of the criteria and still meets
the objective of the revised guidelines.
[[Page 18251]]
Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities: Step
4. Assign Recovery Action Priority
Comment (29): One commenter felt that the priority assignments for
recovery actions would not lead to better species conservation
outcomes. The commenter felt that the following language in the
proposed revision to the guidelines was indicative of key problems
currently undermining salmon recovery: ``. . . some lower priority
actions may be implemented before Priority 1 actions, for example
because a partner is interested in implementing a lower priority
action, because a Priority 1 action is not currently possible (e.g.,
there is a lack of political support for the action), or because
implementation of the Priority 1 action may take many years'' (82 FR
24949; May 31, 2017). The commenter cited a report prepared for NMFS in
2011 on the implementation of the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan
(http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/recovery_planning/salmon_steelhead/domains/puget_sound/chinook/implement-rpt.pdf), which found socio-political factors obstructed
progress on several high-priority recovery actions related to habitat.
The commenter pointed out that the report recommended several remedial
actions to address the lack of progress, including defining the level
of critical habitat required to ensure the recovery of Chinook salmon
and other listed species and assessing the effectiveness of protective
regulations. The commenter claimed that NMFS had yet to carry forth on
these recommendations. The commenter recommended that NMFS review
existing critiques and assess implementation of individual recovery
plans to improve effectiveness of the recovery program.
Response: We undergo a review of listed species every 5 years. As
part of the review, we evaluate progress made toward achieving the
recovery criteria identified in the recovery plans and recommend, where
appropriate, any changes that may be necessary to improve recovery
progress. However, ESA section 4(h) requires an overarching priority
system to develop and implement recovery plans, and we feel the revised
guidelines improve our ability to identify those priorities. The
priority guidelines identify criteria for assigning priorities to
recovery actions and specify that priority 1 actions should be
implemented first. However, the guidelines acknowledge that lower
recovery actions may be implemented in advance of priority number 1
recovery actions if opportunities arise that allow successful
implementation of such actions. We conclude that flexibility in
applying the guidelines increases the likelihood of recovery actions
being implemented.
In regard to the commenter's concern about the 2011 report on the
implementation of the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan, we acknowledge
the pace could be improved to implement recovery actions, protect
tribal treaty rights, and honor our tribal trust responsibilities. In
response to release of the report, NMFS initiated habitat status and
trends monitoring to quantify the extent and condition of salmon
habitat in Puget Sound, inform our 5-year species status reviews, set
habitat protection priorities, and guide regional and local protection
strategies for salmon recovery. NMFS continues to work with tribes and
our recovery partners in the region to educate the public about the
importance of habitat protection for salmon recovery and cultivate
socio-political support for implementing the diverse range of habitat
actions necessary to achieve recovery. We work closely with state and
local agencies and recovery partners to identify and support
implementation of priority actions and protection measures that
expedite habitat conservation and salmon recovery. NMFS will continue
to review and refine our staff and resource investments to support both
recovery actions in the 2007 Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and
recommendations in the 2011 implementation status report.
Comment (30): One commenter disagreed that threatened species
should generally not be assigned priority 1 actions because, ``even
though the timeline to extinction may be longer for threatened species,
there are often important recovery actions that should be taken to
prevent extinction of threatened species and that merit a Priority 1
ranking.''
Response: We agree there may be important recovery actions for
threatened species, but in any priority ranking system a distinction
must be made between the priority numbers assigned. Threatened species
are likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future, in contrast to endangered species, which are presently in
danger of extinction. Due to the greater risk of extinction, we
determined that recovery actions that must be taken to prevent
extinction of endangered species with a HIGH demographic risk rank are
a higher priority than other recovery actions. We note that the
priority guidelines allow some flexibility in assigning recovery action
priorities. The use of Priority 1 recovery actions in a recovery plan
for a species with a MODERATE demographic risk rank is allowed, but
must be done judiciously and thoughtfully (82 FR 24948).
Comment (31): One commenter generally agreed that recovery actions
for an endangered species should be a priority over those for a
threatened species. However, the commenter recommended that the
priority guidelines include flexibility that encourages early recovery
actions be taken for threatened species when it makes sense from an
economic or other perspective.
Response: The guidelines provide for the flexibility needed to
allow for timely implementation of recovery actions for threatened
species. As stated in the guidelines, this system recognizes the need
to work toward the recovery of all listed species, not simply those
facing the highest magnitude of threat (82 FR 24949). In general, NMFS
intends Priority 1 actions be taken first, but we recognize that some
lower priority actions may be implemented before Priority 1 actions,
for example because a partner is interested in implementing a lower
priority action. Periodic review of, and updates to, recovery plans and
tracking of recovery efforts are also important elements of a
successful recovery program. As research and monitoring results become
available, priorities for implementing recovery actions, including
those for threatened species, may change.
Comment (32): One commenter recommended that NMFS give a higher
priority to Priority 0 Actions, which are all other actions that are
not required for ESA recovery but that would advance broader goals
beyond delisting. The commenter felt that achieving broad-sense
conservation goals first might result in eliminating the need to take
recovery actions identified for delisting. The commenter stated that in
addition to ESA delisting, recovery plans should recognize other
federal authorities, such as essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which may advance
recovery of the species. Another commenter felt that NMFS should
prioritize actions that provide benefits not only to particular
species, but also to other areas such as property protection, human
health, water supply, and economic opportunity.
Response: We agree that recovery plans, where appropriate, may
identify species' goals beyond delisting. We have done this for salmon
recovery plans. For example, the Snake River Spring-
[[Page 18252]]
Summer Chinook and Steelhead recovery plan identifies actions to delist
the species, but then outlines efforts beyond the minimum steps
necessary to delist the species to provide for other legislative
mandates or social, economic, and ecological values (NMFS 2017). This
is why we have categorized and highlighted these types of actions in
the priority guidelines. However, we assigned these actions a numerical
value of 0 and identified them as ``other actions'' to separate them
from those actions that are necessary to delist the species. In
addition, section 4(f) of the ESA makes clear that the purpose of
recovery plans is to provide for the conservation (and survival) of
listed species. Recovery actions are the actions necessary to achieve
the plan's goal for the conservation and survival of the species.
Conservation is defined in the ESA as the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened
species to the point at which the measures provided by the ESA are no
longer necessary (i.e., delisting). Section 4(h) of the ESA requires
the establishment of a priority system for developing and implementing
recovery plans under section 4(f). Thus, we have appropriately focused
the guidelines on prioritizing recovery actions based on delisting the
species.
Comment (33): One commenter disagreed with the addition of Priority
Action numbers 4 and 0, because such actions are not directly related
to downlisting or delisting and are not needed for ESA recovery.
Response: Recovery plans can provide an opportunity to outline
other goals beyond their primary purpose to delist species (see our
response to comment 32). Priority Action number 0 (other actions) is
identified in the guidelines because actions that achieve broader goals
beyond delisting can be important to individuals who value and enjoy
the substantial cultural, social, and economic benefits that are
derived from having healthy and diverse ecosystems. NMFS often works
closely with local planning groups, particularly for recovery of
Pacific salmonids. Generally, these local recovery planning groups want
to participate in broad-sense conservation goals. NMFS believes that
while the recovery plan's primary goal is to ensure the survival of and
delist the species, it is important to achieve ESA recovery in a manner
that is consistent with other federal legal obligations, mitigation
goals, and other broad-sense goals that provide social, cultural, or
economic values. Priority Action number 4 is included because ESA
section 4(g) requires NMFS to work with affected states to monitor
species for no less than 5 years post delisting. Actions related to
post-delisting monitoring required under ESA section 4(g) are
considered a component of sustaining a delisted status.
Comment (34): One commenter felt the guidelines should prioritize
actions that address multiple listed species. Prioritizing recovery
actions that benefit multiple species and populations can help direct
limited funds toward actions that will meet recovery goals more
efficiently.
Response: We disagree that addressing multiple listed species
should be a criterion in assigning a recovery action priority number,
because these assignments are based on the extent to which an action is
necessary to delist a species, not multiple species. However, we agree
that where a recovery action would benefit multiple species, it should
be given a higher priority within a category as a sub-prioritization
process. We added text to the guidelines' discussion on sub-
prioritization of recovery actions within a category to consider
whether there may be benefits to more than one species.
Comment (35): One commenter recommended prioritization of recovery
actions that yield faster results and are sustainable and substantial
relative to other actions.
Response: We agree that within a recovery plan and recovery action
priorities, recovery actions that yield faster results and are
sustainable and substantial should be given priority over other
actions. We added text to the guidelines' discussion on sub-
prioritization of recovery actions within a category to clarify this
point.
Comment (36): One commenter suggested that NMFS not strictly adhere
to recovery action implementation based on priority number. The
commenter stated that, in some cases, implementation of the highest
priority actions might be necessary to prevent extinction and, in other
cases, there may be lower priority actions that would achieve the
recovery and delisting of species. These actions should not be de-
emphasized simply because the species is threatened or has a lower
demographic risk. The commenter felt that NMFS should encourage the
implementation of recovery actions that will achieve recovery goals
irrespective of species status or action priority.
Response: We agree that the goal is to implement all recovery
actions as necessary. However, ESA section 4(h) requires the
establishment of a priority system for developing and implementing
recovery plans. Any priority system must identify criteria upon which
to prioritize one action/approach over another. The objective of the
revised priority guidelines is to implement a policy to prioritize
limited agency resources to advance the recovery of threatened and
endangered species (i.e., delist). We concluded that to best achieve
recovery goals, efforts should go first to those species that are more
immediately in danger of extinction, where the information regarding
major threats is well-understood, and where management and protective
actions can be implemented successfully. This prioritization approach
does not relieve NMFS of undertaking management and protective actions
to delist the species, but rather helps identify which species and
actions to focus on first. The recovery action priority ranking,
together with the species recovery priority number, will be used to set
priorities for funding and implementation of individual recovery
actions while recognizing the goal to recover all listed species.
Definitions
Comment (37): One commenter felt the terms ``endangered species,''
``foreseeable future,'' and ``threatened species,'' which were included
in the proposed guidelines, have broader ESA application and are either
defined or referenced in the ESA. The commenter stated it was
inappropriate for NMFS to modify these long-standing ESA definitions
through the proposed guidelines. The commenter felt that NMFS should
engage with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to propose the changes
with an appropriate explanation in a separate notice and comment
rulemaking to amend the joint regulations on listing at 50 CFR 424.02.
Finally, the commenter recommended if the definition for foreseeable
future is retained it should be modified to extend only as far as NMFS
can make ``reliable predictions'' about the future.
Response: The definitions for threatened species and endangered
species are nearly identical to the definitions presented in section 3
of the ESA. The additional text to clarify the distinction between
threatened and endangered species is taken directly from NMFS guidance
(NMFS, May 26, 2016). This clarifying text states that the Services
interpret an endangered species to be one that is presently at risk of
extinction and a threatened species to be one that is not presently at
risk of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. The key statutory difference between a threatened and
endangered species is the timing of
[[Page 18253]]
when a species is or is likely to become in danger of extinction,
either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened). However, we agree with the commenter that definitions for
threatened species, endangered species, and foreseeable future are not
necessary for the purposes of the priority guidelines. Thus, in
response to this comment, we have omitted them from the final recovery
priority guidelines.
Comment (38): One commenter recommended that NMFS define ``key
population'' or explain how it differs from the population as a whole.
Response: We disagree that ``key population'' needs to be defined
when considering mixed population trends. However, we added clarifying
language regarding how to apply the condition of a mixed population
trend to determine the demographic risk category.
Comment (39): Several commenters recommended that the term
``depensation'' be further defined. One commenter recommended:
``Depensation--a factor associated with demographic risks--is the
decline in productivity in a population (e.g., smolts per spawner) as
the abundance declines and can result from the uncertainty of finding a
mate in a sparse population and/or increased predation rates at low
abundance.''
Response: We changed the definition for depensation to: ``A decline
in productivity in a population as the abundance declines that can
result in increased extinction risk due to factors such as the
uncertainty that mates will be able to find one another, randomly
skewed sex ratios, changes to predator behavior due to shifting prey
abundance, or scaling effects of random variation among individuals.''
Comment (40): One commenter requested clarification regarding the
meaning of the demographic risk category of ``diversity.''
Specifically, is it meant to refer only to genetic diversity or is it
intended to encompass other types of diversity, such as sex and age
diversity or behavioral diversity within the population?
Response: As specified in the proposed priority guidelines, the
risk condition of concern for diversity is ``low genetic and phenotypic
diversity severely limiting adaptive potential.'' Thus, it encompasses
genetic diversity and the expression of those genes as influenced by
the environment, which could include sex or age structure or behavioral
diversity where it is linked to the underlying genetic makeup.
Comment (41): One commenter requested additional clarification on
the distinction between ``major'' and ``non-major'' threats and how
major threats will be identified and considered during the recovery
planning process.
Response: Major threats may be identified through the extinction
risk analysis for a listing determination or through the threats
assessment in the recovery planning process. In making a listing
determination, we are required to rely on the best available scientific
and commercial data. The available data may not allow us to distinguish
which particular threat or threats pose the greatest risk to the
species, nor are we required to do so in order to make a listing
determination. However, depending on the available data, we may
qualitatively compare threats relative to their contribution to the
species' extinction risk (NMFS 2017 Guidance on Responding to Petitions
and Conducting Status Reviews under the Endangered Species Act). For
prioritizing recovery plan development and implementation, we can
generally rely on the listing assessment to identify the major threats
to the particular species. Where the listing determination has not
identified the major threats, we rely on an assessment of threats
during the recovery planning process. The definition of ``major
threat'' reflects factors we consider in determining major threats.
Comment (42): One commenter recommended that the guidelines define
``productivity'' since it is a key factor in assessing a species'
demographic risk.
Response: We added the definition of productivity from the NMFS
2017 Guidance on Responding to Petitions and Conducting Status Reviews
under the Endangered Species Act as follows: ``Productivity is the
population growth rate, over the entire life cycle, and factors that
affect population growth rate provide information on how well a
population is `performing.' These parameters, and related trends in
abundance, reflect conditions that drive a population's dynamics and
thus determine its abundance. Changes in environmental conditions,
including ecological interactions, can influence a population's
intrinsic productivity, the environment's capacity to support a
population, or both. Such changes may result from random environmental
variation over a wide range of temporal scales (environmental
stochasticity). A population growth rate that is unstable or declining
over a long period of time indicates poor resiliency to future
environmental change.''
Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines
Part A: Listing, Reclassification, and Delisting Priorities
1. Listing and Reclassification from Threatened to Endangered
In considering species to be listed or reclassified from threatened
to endangered, two criteria will be evaluated to establish four
priority categories as shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Priorities for Listing or Reclassification From Threatened to
Endangered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude of threat Immediacy of threat Priority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High.............................. Imminent............ 1
Non-imminent........ 2
Low to Moderate................... Imminent............ 3
Non-imminent........ 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first criterion, magnitude of threat, gives a higher listing
priority to species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. Species facing threats of low to moderate magnitude will be
given a lower priority. The second criterion, immediacy of threat,
gives a higher listing priority to species facing actual threats than
to those species facing threats to which they are intrinsically
vulnerable, but which are not currently active.
2. Delisting and Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened
NMFS currently reviews listed species at least every 5 years in
accordance with ESA section 4(c)(2) to determine whether any listed
species qualify for reclassification or removal from the list. When a
species warrants reclassification or delisting, priority for developing
regulations will be assigned according to the guidelines in Table 2.
Two criteria will be evaluated to establish six priority categories.
[[Page 18254]]
Table 2--Priorities for Delisting and Reclassification From Endangered
to Threatened
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management impact Petition status Priority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High.............................. Petitioned Action... 1
Unpetitioned Action. 2
Moderate.......................... Petitioned Action... 3
Unpetitioned Action. 4
Low............................... Petitioned Action... 5
Unpetitioned Action. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The priorities established in Table 2 are not intended to direct or
mandate decisions regarding a species' reclassification or removal from
the list. This priority system is intended only to set priorities for
developing rules for species that no longer satisfy the listing
criteria for their particular designation under the ESA. The decision
regarding whether a species will be retained on the list, and in which
category, will be based on the factors contained in ESA section 4(a)(1)
and 50 CFR 424.11.
The first consideration of the system outlined in Table 2 accounts
for the management impact of a species' inclusion on the list.
Management impact is the extent of protective actions, including
restrictions on human activities, which must be taken to protect and
recover a listed species. If the current listing is no longer accurate,
continuing protective management actions could divert resources from
species more in need of conservation and recovery efforts, or impose an
unnecessary restriction on the public. Because the ESA mandates timely
response to petitions, the system also considers whether NMFS has been
petitioned to remove a species from the list or to reclassify a species
from endangered to threatened. Higher priority will be given to
petitioned actions than to unpetitioned actions that are classified at
the same level of management impact.
There is no direct relationship between the systems outlined in
Tables 1 and 2. Although the same statutory criteria apply in making
listing and delisting determinations, the considerations for setting
listing and delisting priorities are quite different. Candidate species
facing immediate critical threats will be given a higher priority for
listing than species being considered for delisting. Likewise, a
delisting proposal for a recovered species that would eliminate
unwarranted utilization of limited resources may, in appropriate
instances, take precedence over listing proposals for species not
facing immediate, critical threats.
Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation Priorities
The objective of Part B of these guidelines is to implement a
policy to prioritize limited agency resources to advance the recovery
of threatened and endangered species. The guidelines are based on the
immediacy and severity of the species' extinction risk; extent of
information available regarding major threats; degree to which the
United States has jurisdiction, authority, or influence over major
threats; and certainty that management or protective actions can be
implemented successfully. To achieve this objective, we identified the
following general principles for prioritizing recovery plan development
and implementation:
Endangered species are a higher priority than threatened
species;
Species with more severe demographic risks are a higher
priority because they are at greater risk of extinction;
Species for which major threats are well understood are a
higher priority because in such cases effective recovery criteria and
recovery actions are more likely to be identified for that species;
Species for which major threats are primarily under U.S.
authority, or the United States can influence the abatement of such
threats through international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions,
and agreements), are a higher priority because we have ability to
address those threats; and
Species for which there exist possible management or
protective actions that are not novel or experimental, are technically
feasible, and have been successful at removing, reducing, or mitigating
effects of major threats are a higher priority, because these actions
are more likely to be effective at advancing recovery.
The process to prioritize recovery planning and implementation
consists of four steps:
1. Identify a demographic risk rank based on the listing status and
species' condition in terms of its productivity, spatial distribution,
diversity, abundance, and trends (Table 3);
2. Identify categories for three components of recovery potential;
3. Based on results of steps 1 and 2, assign a recovery priority
for recovery plan development and implementation (Table 4); and
4. Assign priority rankings to actions within the recovery plan.
This prioritization process reflects a logical sequence for
recovery plan development and implementation for a species: First,
identify the species' risk; second, develop the recovery plan; and
third, implement the recovery actions on a priority basis and monitor
and evaluate progress. As new information is obtained through the
monitoring and evaluation process, recovery plans will be updated or
revised as needed.
Step 1. Identify a Demographic Risk Rank
As a first step, we categorize the severity of an ESA-listed
species' extinction risk based on its status and on the productivity,
spatial distribution, diversity, abundance, and, if needed, population
trend of the species. We assess the species' demographic risk based on
information on past threats that have contributed to the species'
current status and the biological response of the species to present
and future threats. The severity of a species' demographic risk,
relative to all species under our jurisdiction, will help inform how we
prioritize resources toward recovery plan development and
implementation.
We first consider each of the first four indicators in the
Demographic Risk Category--productivity, spatial distribution,
diversity, and abundance (Table 3; column 1)--and the associated risk
condition described in column 2 (Table 3) separately for endangered and
threatened species. The risk condition is met when the listed entity
(i.e., species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment) is
considered at risk for that category. For example, populations or
subpopulations within a listed entity may vary in terms of their
productivity. Some may be at or below depensation, while others are
stable and healthy. In those cases, we consider which population(s)
contribute most substantially to the overall viability of the listed
entity. If certain populations
[[Page 18255]]
or subpopulations are at or below depensation and their loss would
substantially increase the listed entity's extinction risk, then the
risk condition applies.
If an endangered species meets any of the first four risk
conditions in column 2 (Table 3), then the species is considered a HIGH
demographic risk, regardless of its population trend. If an endangered
species does not meet any of the first four risk conditions in column 2
(Table 3), then population trend information will be used to categorize
the demographic risk--e.g., HIGH if the population trend is declining
or unknown, or uncertain but likely declining; MODERATE if the trend is
stable, increasing, or uncertain but likely stable or increasing, or
MODERATE or HIGH if the trend is mixed. For a mixed population trend, a
HIGH rating should be assigned if key populations are declining such
that their continued decline would contribute substantially to the
listed entity being any one or more of the following: At or below
depensation, limited or fragmented in spatial distribution, low in
genetic and phenotypic diversity, or declining to only one, or a few,
small population(s) or subpopulations (see Table 3 Risk Condition);
otherwise a MODERATE rating should be assigned for mixed population
trends.
If a threatened species meets any of the first four risk conditions
in column 2 (Table 3), the species is assigned a MODERATE demographic
risk, regardless of its population trend. If a threatened species does
not meet any of the first four risk conditions in column 2 (Table 3),
its population trend is used to assign the demographic risk--e.g.,
MODERATE if the trend is declining or unknown, or uncertain but likely
decreasing; LOW if the trend is stable, or increasing, or uncertain but
likely stable or increasing, or, LOW or MODERATE if the trend is mixed.
For a mixed population trend, a MODERATE rating should be assigned if
key populations are declining such that their continued decline would
contribute substantially to the listed entity being any one or more of
the following: At or below depensation, limited or fragmented in
spatial distribution, low in genetic and phenotypic diversity, or
declining to only one, or a few, small population(s) or subpopulations
(see Table 3 Risk Condition); otherwise a LOW rating should be assigned
for mixed population trends.
NMFS reports ESA listed species population trends biennially to
Congress pursuant to ESA section 4(f)(3). To ensure consistency between
that report and setting priorities for recovery planning and
implementation, we will apply the following general guidelines:
Use a minimum of three or more abundance estimates for key
population(s) over a 10-year period or, depending on taxa, all
available data years (> 3 data points) for trend estimation.
1. Increasing: The species (includes consideration of all
population units that make up the species ``as-listed'') shows
measurably higher numbers from assessment to assessment.
2. Stable: The species shows no measurable increase or decrease
over the period of time between assessments.
3. Decreasing: The species shows measurably lower numbers from
assessment to assessment.
4. Mixed: Mixed is a designation reserved for species with multiple
populations or portions of the range that have markedly different
population trends, and species are considered mixed if there are at
least 3 data points and the criteria for increasing, decreasing, or
stable are not met.
5. Uncertain: The species has 3 or more data points over a 10-year
period or all available data years, but there is great uncertainty over
data quality to estimate trends.
a. Uncertain--likely stable or increasing: Major threats generally
have been abated and the abundance is sufficiently high that the first
four risk conditions in column 2 (Table 3) have not been met and no new
major threats have been identified since listing.
b. Uncertain--likely decreasing: Major threats remain or have been
only partially abated or the abundance is sufficiently low that the
first four risk conditions in column 2 (Table 3) cannot be ruled out.
6. Unknown: The species has fewer than 3 data points over a 10-year
period or all available data years to estimate trends.
Table 3--Severity of Species' Demographic Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic risk category Risk condition Demographic risk rank \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endangered
Threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Productivity....................... At or below If any one of these risk conditions is met, the
Spatial distribution............... depensation. ranking is HIGH. If not, use the Trend
Limited/fragmented information below to determine rank.
spatial
distribution;
vulnerable to
catastrophe..
If any one of these risk conditions is met,
the ranking is MODERATE. If not, use the
Trend information below to determine rank.
Diversity.......................... Low genetic and
phenotypic
diversity
severely limiting
adaptive
potential.
Abundance.......................... One, or a few,
small
population(s) or
subpopulations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trends............................. Decreasing trend.. HIGH
MODERATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown trend..... HIGH
MODERATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncertain trend, HIGH
likely decreasing.
MODERATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncertain trend, MODERATE
likely stable or
increasing.
LOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stable trend...... MODERATE
LOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing trend.. MODERATE
LOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18256]]
Mixed trend....... HIGH MODERATE MODERATE LOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For those species with recovery plans, the endangered or threatened category may be applied to a species currently not listed as such if NMFS has
recommended a reclassification through a 5-year review or proposed rule.
Step 2. Identify Categories of Recovery Potential
In Step 2, we evaluate a species' recovery potential. We have
defined recovery potential to include three components: (1) Whether the
origin of major threats is known and the species' response to those
major threats is well understood; (2) whether the United States has
jurisdiction, authority, or influence to implement management or
protective actions to address major threats; and (3) the certainty that
management or protective actions will be effective. Each of the three
components is considered to be HIGH or LOW TO MODERATE based on the
following descriptions:
Recovery Potential Component 1: Major Threats Well Understood
HIGH: Natural and man-made threats that have a major
impact on the species' ability to persist have been identified, and the
species' responses to those threats are well understood. This also
applies to transnational species that spend only a portion of their
life cycle in U.S. waters, but major threats have been identified and
the species' responses to those threats are well understood. This can
apply also to transnational or foreign species where major threats
occur beyond U.S. waters or the high seas, but U.S. markets that
contribute substantially to those major threats have been identified
and the species' responses to those threats are well understood. Data
needs to fill knowledge gaps on threats that have an impact on the
species' ability to persist are minimal. Identification and knowledge
of a species' response to any one major threat would fit the species
into this category.
LOW TO MODERATE: Natural and man-made threats that have or
are believed to have a major impact on the species' ability to persist
may not have been identified and/or the species' responses to those
major threats are not well understood. Data needs to fill knowledge
gaps on major threats that have or are believed to have an impact on
the species' ability to persist are substantial. If no major impacts
exist, natural and man-made threats that have or are believed to have
less than a major impact on the species' ability to persist also belong
to this category.
Recovery Potential Component 2: U.S. Jurisdiction, Authority, or
Influence Exists for Management or Protective Actions To Address Major
Threats
HIGH: Management or protective actions to address major
threats are primarily under U.S. jurisdiction or authority, or the
United States can influence the abatement of major threats through
existing international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions, and
agreements). This also applies to transnational species that spend only
a portion of their life cycle in U.S. waters, but major threats can be
addressed by U.S. actions. This may also apply to transnational or
foreign species whose major threats include U.S. markets that represent
a substantial source of demand for the species, and the United States
may be able to influence the abatement of such demand. Where climate
change impacts are a major threat and necessary actions to abate the
threat are global in nature, management or protective actions under
U.S. authority to address a threat that would help offset the impacts
of climate change would fall into this category.
LOW TO MODERATE: Management or protective actions to
address major threats are mainly beyond U.S. jurisdiction, authority,
or ability to influence those major threats. If no major impacts exist,
natural and man-made threats that have or are believed to have less
than a major impact on the species' ability to persist also belong to
this category.
Recovery Potential Component 3: Certainty That Management or Protective
Actions Will Be Effective
HIGH: Management or protective actions are technically
feasible; have been successful at removing, reducing, or mitigating
effects of major threats; and do not use novel or experimental
techniques. These actions can include categories of actions that have
proven effective for other species, but that may require further
testing for the targeted species (e.g., fishing gear modifications,
methods to overcome or modify barriers to fish passage). Where climate
change impacts are a major threat and actions to abate the threat are
global and are not under U.S. jurisdiction, authority, or influence
through existing international mechanisms (e.g., treaties, conventions,
and agreements), management or protective actions under U.S. authority
that effectively address a threat to help offset the impacts of climate
change would fall into this category. Demonstrated success may be
incremental on a small scale or with a few individuals. For species
with current recovery plans, high certainty of effectiveness may be
determined on the basis of individual recovery actions. If multiple
recovery actions are needed to address a major threat that impedes
recovery, not all need to fit the criterion of high certainty of
effectiveness. If there are multiple major threats, only one major
threat needs to meet the high level of certainty for the species to be
assigned this category.
LOW TO MODERATE: Management or protective actions, if
known, may be novel or experimental, may not be technically feasible,
and have less certainty of removing, reducing, or mitigating effects of
major threats. If no major impacts exist, natural and man-made threats
that have or are believed to have less than a major impact on the
species' ability to persist also belong to this category.
Step 3. Assign Recovery Priority Number for Recovery Plan Preparation
and Implementation
In Step 3, we combine the results of the Demographic Risk Rank
(Step 1) and Recovery Potential (Step 2) to assign Recovery Priority
numbers, which will be used to prioritize resources for recovery plan
development and implementation. We assign the greatest weight to
demographic risk (Table 4; column 1), because species with more severe
demographic risks are at greater risk of extinction. Although
demographic risk is the most important factor to consider in assigning
a Recovery Priority number, the species' recovery potential is also an
important factor. For example, a species with a HIGH demographic risk
and a LOW TO MODERATE recovery potential for all three components
(major threats understood, management actions exist under U.S.
authority or influence to abate major threats, and certainty that
actions will be effective) will be a lower priority than a species with
a MODERATE or LOW demographic risk and a HIGH recovery potential.
For Recovery Potential (Table 4; Columns 2, 3, and 4), we assign
the weights as follows:
[[Page 18257]]
1. The greatest weight is given to when major threats are well
understood. In order to identify effective management or protective
actions, we need to understand the threats that impact the species'
ability to persist;
2. The second greatest weight is given to management or protective
actions under U.S. jurisdiction, authority, or ability to influence the
abatement of major threats. We acknowledge that management or
protective actions beyond U.S. jurisdiction, authority, or influence
exist and may greatly affect recovery progress for transnational
species that spend a portion of their life history within U.S. waters.
However, for the purposes of prioritizing, we assign a greater weight
to those species and recovery plans for which recovery actions are or
are expected to be mainly under U.S. jurisdiction, authority, or
influence, because this is where we have the greatest opportunity to
implement recovery actions; and
3. The lowest weight is given to the certainty that management or
protective actions will be effective, because the likelihood of
effectiveness depends, in part, on whether sufficient knowledge of
threats to develop actions exists, and the United States has the
jurisdiction, authority, or ability to influence implementation of such
actions
Once a recovery priority number is identified, species that are, or
may be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or
other forms of economic activity are assigned a `C' (Table 4; column 5)
and are given a higher priority over those species that are not in
conflict (Table 4; column 6).
Table 4--Recovery Priority for Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery potential Recovery priority
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.
jurisdiction,
authority, or
influence Certainty that
Demographic risk \a\ Major threats exists for management or
are well management or protective Conflict No conflict
understood protective actions will be
actions to effective
address major
threats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGH........................ High........... High........... High........... 1C............. 1
HIGH........................ High........... High........... Low to Moderate 2C............. 2
HIGH........................ High........... Low to Moderate High........... 3C............. 3
MODERATE.................... High........... High........... High........... 3C............. 3
HIGH........................ Low to Moderate High........... High........... 4C............. 4
HIGH........................ High........... Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 4C............. 4
MODERATE.................... High........... High........... Low to Moderate 4C............. 4
LOW......................... High........... High........... High........... 5C............. 5
HIGH........................ Low to Moderate High........... Low to Moderate 5C............. 5
MODERATE.................... High........... Low to Moderate High........... 5C............. 5
LOW......................... High........... High........... Low to Moderate 6C............. 6
HIGH........................ Low to Moderate Low to Moderate High........... 6C............. 6
MODERATE.................... Low to Moderate High........... High........... 6C............. 6
MODERATE.................... High........... Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 6C............. 6
LOW......................... High........... Low to Moderate High........... 7C............. 7
HIGH........................ Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 7C............. 7
MODERATE.................... Low to Moderate High........... Low to Moderate 7C............. 7
LOW......................... Low to Moderate High........... High........... 8C............. 8
LOW......................... High........... Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 8C............. 8
MODERATE.................... Low to Moderate Low to Moderate High........... 8C............. 8
LOW......................... Low to Moderate High........... Low to Moderate 9C............. 9
MODERATE.................... Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 9C............. 9
LOW......................... Low to Moderate Low to Moderate High........... 10C............ 10
LOW......................... Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate 11C............ 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Demographic Risk Rank was determined in Table 3. HIGH or MODERATE may be an endangered species and MODERATE
or LOW may be a threatened species (see Table 3).
Step 4. Assign Recovery Plan Action Priority
In Step 4, we prioritize actions contained in a recovery plan. NMFS
will assign action priorities from 0 to 4 based on the criteria
described below. Assigning priorities does not imply that some recovery
actions are not important; rather it simply means that they may be
deferred while higher priority recovery actions are being implemented.
All actions will be assigned priorities based on the following:
Priority 1 Recovery Actions: These are the recovery actions that
must be taken to remove, reduce, or mitigate major threats and prevent
extinction and often require urgent implementation. Because threatened
species by definition are likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future and are presently not in danger of extinction,
Priority 1 should be given primarily to recovery actions for species
ranked as HIGH demographic risk in Table 3. The use of Priority 1
recovery actions in a recovery plan for a species with MODERATE
demographic risk should be done judiciously and thoughtfully. Even the
highest priority actions within a particular plan will not be assigned
a Priority 1 ranking unless they are actions necessary to prevent a
species from becoming extinct or are research actions needed to fill
knowledge gaps and identify management actions necessary to prevent
extinction. Therefore, some plans will not have any Priority 1 actions.
At the same time, we also need to be careful not to assign a lower
priority than is warranted, simply because an action is but one
component of a larger effort that must be undertaken. For instance,
there is often confusion as to whether a research action can be
assigned a Priority of 1 since it, in and of itself, will not prevent
extinction. However, the outcome of a research project may provide
critical information necessary to initiate a protective action to
prevent extinction (e.g., applying the results of a genetics study to a
captive propagation program for a seriously declining species) and
would warrant Priority 1 status.
[[Page 18258]]
Priority 2 Recovery Actions: These are recovery actions to remove,
reduce, or mitigate major threats and prevent continued population
decline or research needed to fill knowledge gaps, but their
implementation is less urgent than Priority 1 actions.
Priority 3 Recovery Actions: These are all recovery actions that
should be taken to remove, reduce, or mitigate any remaining, non-major
threats and ensure the species can maintain an increasing or stable
population to achieve delisting criteria, including research needed to
fill knowledge gaps and monitoring to demonstrate achievement of
demographic criteria.
Priority 4 Post-Delisting Actions: These are actions that are not
linked to downlisting or delisting criteria and are not needed for ESA
recovery, but are needed to facilitate post-delisting monitoring under
ESA section 4(g), such as the development of a post-delisting
monitoring plan that provides monitoring design (e.g., sampling error
estimates). Some of these actions may carry out post-delisting
monitoring.
Priority 0 Other Actions: These are actions that are not needed for
ESA recovery or post-delisting monitoring but that would advance
broader goals beyond delisting. Other actions include, for example,
other legislative mandates or social, economic, and ecological values.
These actions are given a zero priority number because they do not fall
within the priorities for delisting the species, yet the numeric value
allows tracking these types of actions in the NMFS Recovery Action
Mapping Tool Database [http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/recovery_action_mapping_tool.html].
Most actions will likely be Priority 2 or 3, because the majority
of actions will likely contribute to preventing further declines of the
species, but may not prevent extinction.
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, NMFS intends that Priority 1 actions will be
addressed before Priority 2 actions and Priority 2 actions before
Priority 3 actions, etc. We also recognize, however, that some lower
priority actions may be implemented before Priority 1 actions because,
for example, a partner is interested in implementing a lower priority
action, or a Priority 1 action is not currently possible (e.g., there
is lack of political support for the action), or implementation of the
Priority 1 action may take many years.
For some species, such as those with complicated recovery programs
involving multiple listed species and many actions, it may be useful to
assign sub-priorities within these categories (e.g., Priority 2a,
Priority 2b, Priority 2c). In assigning sub-priorities within a
category, recovery actions that benefit multiple species and/or are
likely to yield faster results that are sustainable should be given the
highest priority, e.g., Priority 1a versus Priority 1c. If sub-
priorities are assigned, a description of and criteria for each sub-
priority should be provided in the recovery plan.
Process for Applying Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and
Implementation Priorities
The lead NMFS Region or Headquarters will identify a species'
Recovery Priority number (Table 4) by assessing the species'
Demographic Risk Rank (Step 1; Table 3) and Recovery Potential (Step 2)
and apply it to the Recovery Priority (Step 3; Table 4). Where multiple
NMFS Regions are involved, the lead Region or Headquarters office will
coordinate with all NMFS regions involved to reach consensus on the
Demographic Risk Rank, Recovery Potential, and Recovery Priority.
Application of these guidelines to assess recovery priority relative to
all species within our jurisdiction will be done on a biennial basis as
part of the report to Congress (ESA section 4(f)(3)) and through the 5-
year review process (ESA section 4(c)(2)).
In applying Part B: Recovery Plan Preparation and Implementation
Priorities, the lead NMFS Region or Headquarters will prioritize
species within their jurisdiction. Where a recovery plan covers
multiple species, the highest ranked species should dictate the
priority for recovery plan preparation and implementation. For example,
if a recovery plan covers species A (assigned a recovery priority
number 1) and species B (assigned a recovery priority number 8),
species A would dictate the recovery plan preparation priority.
Implementation of recovery actions within the plan would also be
prioritized for species A where recovery actions are assigned the same
priority numbers (e.g., recovery actions assigned priority number 1 for
species A would be given a priority over recovery actions assigned
priority number 1 for species B).
We anticipate the recovery prioritization to be a dynamic process--
as more information is made available through research and monitoring
about demographic risk, limiting factors, and threats, the species
could move up or down the priority scale depending on whether the new
information reveals there are management or protective actions that can
be implemented and be effective at recovering the species.
Recovery Action Priority Numbers will be assigned to each recovery
action when the recovery plan is developed, revised, or updated. These
revised guidelines will apply only to plans that are developed,
revised, or updated after the finalization of these guidelines. As the
results of research or monitoring of recovery implementation become
available, the Recovery Action Priority Numbers can be modified through
plan updates or revisions to address changing priorities based on this
new information.
Part C: Recovery Plans
NMFS believes that periodic review of and updates to recovery plans
and tracking recovery efforts are important elements of a successful
recovery program. As we develop recovery plans for each species,
specific recovery actions are identified and prioritized according to
the criteria discussed above. This prioritization process recognizes
that recovery plans should be viewed as living documents, and that
research and monitoring, planning, and implementation describe a cycle
of adaptive implementation of recovery actions for ESA-listed species.
Even after recovery planning is complete and the plan is being
implemented, key information gaps and uncertainties should constantly
be evaluated. Research and monitoring results should inform recovery
plan changes and refine strategies to implement recovery actions. The
recovery action priority ranking, together with the species recovery
priority, will be used to set priorities for funding and implementation
of individual recovery actions. Although the guidelines provide a
framework for prioritizing the timing of recovery plan development and
implementation, NMFS will work closely with partners to develop
recovery plans and implement recovery actions for all species, unless a
recovery plan would not promote the conservation of the species.
Definitions
For purposes of this guidance only, the below terms have the
following meanings:
Demographic Risk: Characteristics of a population (productivity,
spatial distribution, diversity, abundance, and population trend) that
are indicators of the species' ability to persist.
[[Page 18259]]
Depensation: A decline in productivity in a population as the
abundance declines that can result in increased extinction risk due to
factors such as the uncertainty that mates will be able to find one
another, randomly skewed sex ratios, changes in predator behavior to
shifting prey abundance, or scaling effects of random variation among
individuals.
Major Threat: A threat whose scope, immediacy, and intensity
results in a response by the species that prevents the improvement of
its status to the point that such species may not be reclassified or
delisted based on the factors set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Conversely, non-major threats are those threats whose scope, immediacy,
and intensity results in a response by the species but singularly or
cumulatively do not prevent the improvement of its status to the point
that such species may be reclassified or delisted based on the factors
set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Productivity: The population growth rate, over the entire life
cycle. Factors that affect population growth rate provide information
on how well a population is ``performing.'' These parameters, and
related trends in abundance, reflect conditions that drive a
population's dynamics and thus determine its abundance. Changes in
environmental conditions, including ecological interactions, can
influence a population's intrinsic productivity, the environment's
capacity to support a population, or both. Such changes may result from
random environmental variation over a wide range of temporal scales
(environmental stochasticity). A population growth rate that is
unstable or declining over a long period of time indicates poor
resiliency to future environmental change.
Technically Feasible: The scientific, engineering, and operational
aspects of management or protective actions that are capable of being
implemented.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Withdrawal From the 1994 Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery
Plan Participation and Implementation Under the Endangered Species Act
With this notice, we also are announcing NMFS' withdrawal from the
1994 Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and
Implementation Under the Endangered Species Act. On July 1, 1994, NMFS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published notice of six joint
policy statements on various issues involving implementation of the ESA
(59 FR 34270). One of these, the Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation Under the Endangered
Species Act, established the policy that NMFS and FWS would develop
recovery plans within 2\1/2\ years after final listing. That timeframe
was expanded upon in NMFS' Interim Endangered and Threatened Species
Recovery Planning Guidance (Interim Recovery Planning Guidance)
(updated version 1.4, July 2018; available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/endangered-species-act-guidance-policies-and-regulations), which was
adopted by FWS on August 26, 2010. The Interim Recovery Planning
Guidance restated the 2\1/2\ year deadline to complete final recovery
plans and added a deadline of 1\1/2\ years for completion of draft
recovery plans.
As explained in the revised recovery priority guidelines announced
in this notice, we must prioritize limited agency resources to advance
the recovery of threatened and endangered species. These limited agency
resources have meant that it is not always possible to complete
recovery plans within 2\1/2\ years after final listing of the species
as endangered or threatened. NMFS will complete recovery plans within a
reasonable amount of time, but must do so on a priority basis within
the limits of available resources, which may require more than 2\1/2\
years.
Therefore NMFS is withdrawing from the Interagency Cooperative
Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation Under the
Endangered Species Act. The remainder of that policy has been expanded
and updated for the most part through the Interim Recovery Planning
Guidance, and NMFS will continue to follow that guidance. However,
where section 1.5.1 of the Interim Recovery Planning Guidance also
contains deadlines for completing draft and final recovery plans, we
will no longer follow that portion of the guidance. The remainder of
the Interim Recovery Planning Guidance continues to be applicable to
our recovery planning and implementation efforts.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: April 24, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-08656 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
