EPA's Vessel General Permit and Small Vessel General

decline as the individuals they comprise live, die, grow, mature, migrate, and reproduce, or fail
to do so. When we assess whether or to what degree an Agency’s program is likely to eliminate
or avoid risks to endangered or threatened species, we are mindful of the distinction between
species, the populations they comprise, and the individuals comprised by those populations.
When we assess whether or to what degree an Agency’s program is likely to eliminate or avoid
risks to individual members of endangered or threatened species, we think in terms of the
individuals’ fitness, which integrates an individuals’ longevity with its current and future
reproductive success. In particular, we examine the scientific and commercial data available to
determine if an individual’s probable response to stressors produced by an Action would
reasonably be expected to reduce the individual’s current or expected future reproductive success
by increasing an individual’s likelihood of dying prematurely, increasing the age at which it
becomes reproductively mature, reducing the age at which it stops reproducing, reducing the
number of live births it produces during any reproductive bout, reducing the number of
reproductive bouts it engages in over its reproductive lifespan (in animals that reproduce
multiple times), or causing the individual’s progeny to experience any of these phenomena
(Brommer 2000, Brommer et al. 1998, 2002; Clutton-Brock 1998, Coulson et al. 2006, Kotiaho
et al. 2005, McGraw and Caswell 1996, Newton and Rothery 1997, Oli and Dobson 2003, Roff
2002, Stearns 1992, Turchin 2003).
We evaluate whether individual members of an endangered or threatened species experience
reductions in their current or expected future reproductive success or experience reductions in
the rates at which they grow, mature, or become reproductively active. Then we determine if
those reductions also reduce the abundance, reproduction rates, and growth rates (or increase
variance in one or more of these rates) of the populations those individuals represent (see Stearns
1992). Similarly, we determine if those population-level reductions reduce the viability of the
species those population(s) comprise. Our general permit assessments focus on whether or to
what degree an Agency’s program is likely to insure that the direct or indirect effects of actions
the program would authorize are not likely to reduce the fitness of listed individuals to a degree
that would be sufficient to reduce the viability of the population(s) those individuals represent
and jeopardize the survival and recovery of the species.
Our consideration of how well an Agency’s program manages risks to designated critical habitat
focuses on the value of the physical, chemical, or biotic phenomena of the critical habitat for the
conservation of the endangered and threatened species for which the critical habitat was
designated. In this step of our assessment, we consider information about the contribution of
constituent elements of critical habitat (or of the physical, chemical, or biotic features that give
the designated area value for the conservation of listed species, particularly for older critical
habitat designations that have no constituent elements) to the conservation value of those areas of
critical habitat that occur in the action area. Then we consider the contribution of the
conservation value of those areas to the conservation value of the entire critical habitat
designation. Our general permit assessments focus on whether or to what degree an Agency’s
program is likely to insure that the direct or indirect effects of actions the program would
authorize are not likely to reduce the value of the physical, chemical, or biotic phenomena of the
critical habitat areas affected or are not likely to reduce that value of the physical, chemical, or
59