Draft Methodology for Prioritizing Status Reviews and Accompanying 12-Month Findings on Petitions for Listing Under the Endangered Species Act, 2229-2232 [2016-00616]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11411), as amended, HUD is publishing
this Notice to identify Federal buildings
and other real property that HUD has
reviewed for suitability for use to assist
the homeless. The properties were
reviewed using information provided to
HUD by Federal landholding agencies
regarding unutilized and underutilized
buildings and real property controlled
by such agencies or by GSA regarding
its inventory of excess or surplus
Federal property. This Notice is also
published in order to comply with the
December 12, 1988 Court Order in
National Coalition for the Homeless v.
Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503–
OG (D.D.C.).
Properties reviewed are listed in this
Notice according to the following
categories: Suitable/available, suitable/
unavailable, and suitable/to be excess,
and unsuitable. The properties listed in
the three suitable categories have been
reviewed by the landholding agencies,
and each agency has transmitted to
HUD: (1) Its intention to make the
property available for use to assist the
homeless, (2) its intention to declare the
property excess to the agency’s needs, or
(3) a statement of the reasons that the
property cannot be declared excess or
made available for use as facilities to
assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available
will be available exclusively for
homeless use for a period of 60 days
from the date of this Notice. Where
property is described as for ‘‘off-site use
only’’ recipients of the property will be
required to relocate the building to their
own site at their own expense.
Homeless assistance providers
interested in any such property should
send a written expression of interest to
HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M.
Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the
Department of Health and Human
Services, Room 5B–17, Parklawn
Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville,
MD 20857, (301) 443–2265 (This is not
a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the
interested provider an application
packet, which will include instructions
for completing the application. In order
to maximize the opportunity to utilize a
suitable property, providers should
submit their written expressions of
interest as soon as possible. For
complete details concerning the
processing of applications, the reader is
encouraged to refer to the interim rule
governing this program, 24 CFR part
581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be
excess, that property may, if
subsequently accepted as excess by
GSA, be made available for use by the
homeless in accordance with applicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jan 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
law, subject to screening for other
Federal use. At the appropriate time,
HUD will publish the property in a
Notice showing it as either suitable/
available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/
unavailable, the landholding agency has
decided that the property cannot be
declared excess or made available for
use to assist the homeless, and the
property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will
not be made available for any other
purpose for 20 days from the date of this
Notice. Homeless assistance providers
interested in a review by HUD of the
determination of unsuitability should
call the toll free information line at 1–
800–927–7588 for detailed instructions
or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at
the address listed at the beginning of
this Notice. Included in the request for
review should be the property address
(including zip code), the date of
publication in the Federal Register, the
landholding agency, and the property
number.
For more information regarding
particular properties identified in this
Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing
sanitary facilities, exact street address),
providers should contact the
appropriate landholding agencies at the
following addresses: NAVY: Mr. Steve
Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset
Management; Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Washington
Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW.,
Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374;
(202)685–9426. (This is not a toll-free
number)
Dated: January 7, 2016.
Brian P. Fitzmaurice,
Director, Division of Community Assistance,
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
Unsuitable Properties
Building
Louisiana
6 Buildings
NAS JRB, New Orleans
New Orleans LA 70143
Landholding Agency: Navy
Property Number: 77201610001
Status: Excess
Directions: 300, 301, 301A, 301B, 305, 305A
Comments: public access denied and no
alternative method to gain access without
compromising national security.
Reasons: Secured Area.
[FR Doc. 2016–00486 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2229
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0169;
4500030113]
Draft Methodology for Prioritizing
Status Reviews and Accompanying 12Month Findings on Petitions for Listing
Under the Endangered Species Act
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
draft methodology for prioritizing status
reviews and accompanying 12-month
findings on petitions for listing species
under the Endangered Species Act. This
draft methodology is intended to allow
us to address outstanding workload
strategically as our resources allow and
to provide transparency to our partners
and other stakeholders as to how we
establish priorities within our upcoming
workload.
DATES: We will accept comments from
all interested parties until February 16,
2016. Please note that if you are using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline
for submitting an electronic comment is
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0169,
which is the docket number for this
draft policy. Then click on the Search
button. You may enter a comment by
clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ Please
ensure that you have found the correct
document before submitting your
comment.
• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0169, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Request for Information section, below,
for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Conservation and
Classification, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803;
telephone 703/358–2171; facsimile 703/
358–1735. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2230
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
the public can petition the Service to
list, delist, or reclassify a species as an
endangered species or a threatened
species. The Act sets forth specific
timeframes in which to complete initial
findings on petitions: The Service has,
to the maximum extent practicable, 90
days from receiving a petition to make
a finding on whether the petition
presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted; and subsequently 12
months from receiving a petition for
which the Service has made a positive
initial finding to make a finding on
whether the petitioned action is
warranted. However, these statutory
deadlines have often proven not to be
achievable given the workload in the
listing program and the available
resources.
Recently, as a result of petitions to list
a large number of species under the Act,
our workload includes more than 500
unresolved status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings on
those petitions to complete. At the same
time, our resources to complete these
findings are limited. Over the last
several years, we have streamlined, and
continue to find efficiencies in, our
procedures for evaluating petitions and
conducting listing actions, but these
efforts are not sufficient to keep up with
the demands of our workload. This draft
methodology is intended to allow us to
address the outstanding workload of
status reviews and accompanying 12month findings strategically as our
resources allow and to provide
transparency to our partners and other
stakeholders as to how we establish
priorities within our upcoming
workload.
To balance and manage this existing
and anticipated future status review and
accompanying 12-month finding
workload in the most efficient manner,
we have developed a draft methodology
to help us use our resources wisely by
working on the highest-priority status
reviews and accompanying 12-month
petition findings first. The draft
methodology consists of identifying five
prioritization categories for these
actions, determining where (into which
category) each action belongs, and using
that information to establish the order in
which we plan to complete status
reviews and accompanying 12-month
findings on petitions to list species
under the Act. This prioritization of
petition findings will inform a multiyear National Listing Workplan for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jan 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
completing all types of actions in the
listing program workload—including
not only status reviews and
accompanying 12-month findings, but
also status reviews initiated by the
Service, proposed and final listing
determinations, and proposed and final
critical habitat designations. We intend
to make the National Listing Workplan
publically available on our Web site
(www.fws.gov/endangered/) and
periodically update it as circumstances
warrant. This draft methodology for
prioritizing petitions to list species does
not apply to actions to downlist a
species from an endangered species to a
threatened species or to delist a species.
Further, this methodology does not
replace our 1983 Endangered and
Threatened Species Listing and
Recovery Priority Guidelines
(September 21, 1983; 48 FR 43098),
which applies to species that have
already been determined to warrant a
listing proposal; rather, it complements
it and can be used in conjunction with
it. As with the 1983 guidelines, this
draft methodology must be viewed as a
guide and should not be looked upon as
an inflexible framework for determining
resource allocations (See 48 FR 43098).
It is not intended to be binding. The
draft methodology to be used in
prioritizing actions and identified
herein incorporates numerous
objectives—including acting on the
species that are most in need of, and
that would most benefit from, listing
under the Act first, and maximizing the
efficiency of the listing program.
We plan to evaluate unresolved status
reviews and accompanying 12-month
findings for upcoming listing actions
and prioritize them using the
prioritization categories and additional
considerations identified in this draft
methodology to assign each action to
one of five priority categories, or ‘‘bins,’’
as described below. In prioritizing status
reviews and accompanying 12-month
findings, we will consider information
from the 90-day finding, any petitions,
and any other information in our files.
We recognize that we may not always
have in our files the information
necessary to assign an action to the
correct bin, so we plan to also work
with State fish and wildlife agencies,
Native American Tribes, and other
appropriate conservation partners who
have management responsibility for
these species or relevant scientific data
to obtain the information necessary to
allow us to accurately prioritize specific
actions.
This priority system will assist us in
compiling outstanding workload into a
multi-year National Listing Workplan
designed to address the species with the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
highest need first. It is our intention that
the National Listing Workplan balance
addressing the large backlog of status
reviews and accompanying 12-month
findings with making progress on other
listing actions, such as making final
listing determinations for candidate
species and designating critical habitat.
While this draft methodology was
developed primarily to prioritize the
outstanding status reviews and
accompanying 12-month petition
findings, the considerations raised in
our prioritization categories may also be
useful in prioritizing other actions in
the listing program as we develop the
National Listing Workplan each year.
Prior to the start of each fiscal year, we
will update the National Listing
Workplan as new information is
obtained. We will share the National
Listing Workplan with other Federal
agencies, State fish and wildlife
agencies, Native American Tribes, and
other stakeholders and the public at
large through posting on our Web site
(www.fws.gov/endangered/).
Priority Bins
Below we describe the categories we
have identified for prioritizing listing
actions and the information that factors
into placing specific actions into the
appropriate priority bin. Note that an
action need not meet every facet of a
particular bin in order to be placed in
that bin. If an action meets the
conditions for more than one bin, the
Service will seek to prioritize that action
by taking into consideration any casespecific information relevant to
determining what prioritization would,
overall, best advance the objectives of
this draft methodology—including
protecting the species that are most in
need of, and that would benefit most
from, listing under the Act first, and
maximizing the efficiency of the listing
program.
(1) Highest Priority—Critically
Imperiled: Highest priority will be given
to a species experiencing severe threat
levels across a majority of its range,
resulting in severe population-level
impacts. Species that are critically
imperiled and need immediate listing
action in order to prevent extinction
will be given highest priority.
(2) Strong Data Already Available on
Status: Species for which we currently
have strong information concerning the
species’ status will receive next highest
priority. We acknowledge that the Act
requires that we base our decisions on
the best available information at the
time we make a determination, and we
will continue to adhere to that
requirement. Our experience
implementing the Act has shown us that
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
high-quality scientific information leads
to stronger, more defensible decisions
that have increased longevity.
Therefore, we will generally place
species for which we have particularly
strong scientific data supporting a clear
decision on status—either a decision
that the species warrants listing or does
not warrant listing—at a higher priority
than species in Bins 3, 4, and 5,
discussed below.
(3) New Science Underway to Inform
Key Uncertainties: As stated previously,
a higher quality of scientific information
leads to better decision-making, which
focuses our resources on providing
protections associated with endangered
and threatened species listing on
species most in need. Scientific
uncertainty regarding a species’ status is
often encountered in listing decisions.
For circumstances when that
uncertainty can be resolved within a
reasonable timeframe because emerging
science (e.g., taxonomy, genetics,
threats) is underway to answer key
questions that may influence the listing
determination, those species will be
prioritized for action next after those
with existing strong information bases.
This bin is appropriate when the
emerging science or study is already
underway, or a report is expected soon,
or the data exist, but they need to be
compiled and analyzed. Placing a
species in this bin does not put off
working on the listing action; it just
prioritizes work on species in Bins 1
and 2 for completion first. Moreover,
species do not remain in this bin
indefinitely; a species for which
ongoing research is not expected to
produce results in the near future would
not be placed in this bin, and any
species that is placed in this bin will be
moved to another bin after the research
results become available. With the new,
emerging information, a more informed
decision could be made (e.g., a species’
status could be determined fairly readily
through surveys or other research).
(4) Conservation Opportunities in
Development or Underway: Where
efforts to conserve species are
organized, underway, and likely to
address the threats to the species, we
will consider these species as our fourth
highest priority. In order for a species to
be appropriately placed in this bin,
conservation agreements and
commitments should be completed in
time for consideration in the status
review and accompanying 12-month
finding and in an amount of time that
provides landowners or other entities
adequate opportunity to enroll prior to
any listing decision. Placing a species in
this bin does not put off working on the
listing action; it just prioritizes work on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jan 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
species in Bins 1, 2, and 3 for
completion first.
(5) Limited Data Currently Available:
Species for which we know almost
nothing about its threats or status will
be given fifth highest priority. If we do
not have much information about a
species without conducting research or
further analysis, the species would be
suitably placed in this bin. Placing a
species in this bin does not put off
working on the listing action; it just
prioritizes work on species in Bins 1, 2,
3, and 4 for completion first.
According to the standard under the
Act, we need to make listing decisions
based on the best available scientific
and commercial data. Because the best
available data for species in this bin
may be very limited, even if the Service
conducts further research, we will place
a higher priority on work for those
species for which we have more and
better data already available.
Additional Considerations
The following considerations will also
be used to inform implementation of the
prioritization process, development of
the National Listing Workplan, and any
necessary internal ranking within each
bin (i.e., as tie-breakers within a bin):
• The level of complexity
surrounding the status review and
accompanying 12-month finding, such
as the degree of controversy, biological
complexity, or whether the status
review and accompanying 12-month
finding covers multiple species or spans
multiple regions of the Service.
• The extent to which the protections
of the Act would be able to improve
conditions for that species and its
habitat or also provide benefits to many
other species. For example, a species
primarily under threat due to sea level
rise from the effects of climate change
is unlikely to have its condition much
improved by the protections of the Act.
By contrast, a species primarily under
threat due to habitat destruction from
grazing practices on public lands would
more directly benefit from the
protections of the Act.
• Whether there are opportunities to
maximize efficiency by batching
multiple species for the purpose of
status reviews, petition findings, or
listing determinations. For example,
actions could be batched by taxon, by
species with like threats, by similar
geographic location, or other similar
circumstances. Batching may result in
lower-priority actions that are tied to
higher-priority actions being completed
earlier than they would otherwise.
• Whether there are any special
circumstances whereby an action
should be bumped up (or down) in
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2231
priority when internally ranking actions
within a bin or developing the National
Listing Workplan. One limitation that
might result in divergence from priority
order is when the current highest
priorities are clustered in a geographic
area, such that our scientific expertise at
the field office level is fully occupied
with their existing workload. We
recognize that the geographic
distribution of our scientific expertise
will in some cases require us to balance
workload across geographic areas.
Request for Information
Section 4(h) of the ESA requires that,
when the Secretary establishes
guidelines to insure that the purposes of
Section 4 are achieved efficiently and
effectively, the Secretary provide to the
public notice of, and opportunity to
submit written comments on, those
guidelines. In addition, we intend that
a final methodology for prioritizing
status reviews and accompanying 12month findings for listing will consider
information and recommendations from
all interested parties. We therefore
solicit comments, information, and
recommendations from governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry groups,
environmental interest groups, and any
other interested parties. All comments
and materials we receive by the date
listed above in DATES will be considered
prior to the adoption of a final
methodology.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
We seek comments and
recommendations in particular on:
(1) Whether this draft methodology
sets out clearly defined conditions for
the prioritization bins. If not, please
provide detailed comments so that we
can clarify our methodology.
(2) Whether there may be other factors
or considerations that should be
incorporated into our methodology.
(3) Whether our draft methodology
makes logical sense and will result in an
appropriate use of our limited resources.
Determinations Under Other
Authorities
As mentioned above, we intend to use
this methodology to prioritize work on
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2232
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
status reviews and accompanying 12month findings and to assist with
prioritizing actions in order to develop
the National Listing Workplan for each
fiscal year. Below we make
determinations provided for under
several Executive Orders and statutes
that may apply where a Federal action
is not a binding rule or regulation.
to Tribes and other stakeholders in the
prioritization of our upcoming
workload. We will continue to work
with Tribes as we finalize this draft
methodology and obtain the information
necessary to accurately bin specific
actions and develop our National
Listing Workplan.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
We are analyzing this draft
methodology in accordance with the
criteria of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the Department of the Interior
regulations on Implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act (43
CFR 46.10–46.450), and the Department
of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1–6 and
8). We invite the public to comment on
the extent to which this draft
methodology may have a significant
impact on the human environment, or
fall within one of the categorical
exclusions for actions that have no
individual or cumulative effect on the
quality of the human environment. We
will complete our analysis, in
compliance with NEPA, before
finalizing this methodology.
The primary authors of this draft
policy are the staff members of the
Division of Conservation and
Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This draft methodology does not
contain any collections of information
that require approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). This draft methodology
will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. We may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments,’’ and the Department of
the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, and
the Department of Commerce American
Indian and Alaska Native Policy (March
30, 1995), we have considered possible
effects on federally recognized Indian
tribes and have preliminarily
determined that there are no potential
adverse effects of issuing this draft
methodology. Our intent with this draft
methodology is to provide transparency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jan 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
Authors
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 6, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–00616 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–NER–19995, PPNEHATUC0,
PPMRSCR1Y.CU0000 (166)]
Proposed Information Collection;
National Underground Railroad
Network to Freedom Program
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
We (National Park Service)
will ask the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to approve the
information collection described below.
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our
continuing efforts to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, we invite the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on this IC. This IC is
scheduled to expire on July 31, 2016.
We may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB control number.
DATES: To ensure we are able to
consider your comments, we must
receive them on or before March 15,
2016.
SUMMARY:
Please send your comments
on the ICR to Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, National Park Service, 12201
Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 2C114, Mail
Stop 242, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
madonna_baucum@nps.gov (email).
Please reference OMB Control Number
‘‘1024–0232, NPS National
Underground Railroad Network to
Freedom’’ in the subject line of your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Miller, National Manager,
National Underground Railroad
Network to Freedom Program, National
Park Service, c/o Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge, 2145 Key Wallace
Drive, Cambridge, Maryland 21613; or
via email at diane_miller@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
Public Law 105–203 (National
Underground Railroad Network to
Freedom Act of 1998) authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to establish the
Network to Freedom (Network). The
Network is a collection of sites,
facilities, and programs, both
governmental and nongovernmental,
around the United States. All entities
must have a verifiable association with
the historic Underground Railroad
movement. The National Park Service
administers the National Underground
Railroad Network to Freedom Program.
The program coordinates preservation
and education efforts Nationwide and
integrates local historical places,
museums, and interpretive programs
associated with the Underground
Railroad into a mosaic of community,
regional, and national stories.
Individuals; businesses;
organizations; State, tribal and local
governments; and Federal agencies that
want to join the Network must complete
an application form. The application
and instructions are available on our
Web site at https://www.nps.gov/
subjects/ugrr/index.htm. Respondents
must (1) verify associations and
characteristics through descriptive texts
that are the result of historical research
and (2) submit supporting
documentation; e.g., copies of rare
documents, photographs, and maps.
Much of the information is submitted in
electronic format and used to determine
eligibility to become part of the
Network.
Upon approval by OMB of this
extension request, the NPS will begin
developing a HTML version of the 10–
946, ‘‘National Park Service National
Underground Railroad Network to
Freedom Application Form’’ on the
Department of the Interior’s Enterprise
Forms System (EFS) Web site. The EFS
will consolidate all internal forms used
by the Department and external forms
used by the public into a centralized
automated forms program. This will
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2229-2232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00616]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0169; 4500030113]
Draft Methodology for Prioritizing Status Reviews and
Accompanying 12-Month Findings on Petitions for Listing Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
draft methodology for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-
month findings on petitions for listing species under the Endangered
Species Act. This draft methodology is intended to allow us to address
outstanding workload strategically as our resources allow and to
provide transparency to our partners and other stakeholders as to how
we establish priorities within our upcoming workload.
DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until
February 16, 2016. Please note that if you are using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for
submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In
the Search box, enter the FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0169, which is the docket
number for this draft policy. Then click on the Search button. You may
enter a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!'' Please ensure that you
have found the correct document before submitting your comment.
U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0169, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Request for Information section, below, for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, MS: ES, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703/358-2171;
facsimile 703/358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
[[Page 2230]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), the public can petition the Service to list, delist, or
reclassify a species as an endangered species or a threatened species.
The Act sets forth specific timeframes in which to complete initial
findings on petitions: The Service has, to the maximum extent
practicable, 90 days from receiving a petition to make a finding on
whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted; and subsequently 12 months from
receiving a petition for which the Service has made a positive initial
finding to make a finding on whether the petitioned action is
warranted. However, these statutory deadlines have often proven not to
be achievable given the workload in the listing program and the
available resources.
Recently, as a result of petitions to list a large number of
species under the Act, our workload includes more than 500 unresolved
status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings on those petitions to
complete. At the same time, our resources to complete these findings
are limited. Over the last several years, we have streamlined, and
continue to find efficiencies in, our procedures for evaluating
petitions and conducting listing actions, but these efforts are not
sufficient to keep up with the demands of our workload. This draft
methodology is intended to allow us to address the outstanding workload
of status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings strategically as
our resources allow and to provide transparency to our partners and
other stakeholders as to how we establish priorities within our
upcoming workload.
To balance and manage this existing and anticipated future status
review and accompanying 12-month finding workload in the most efficient
manner, we have developed a draft methodology to help us use our
resources wisely by working on the highest-priority status reviews and
accompanying 12-month petition findings first. The draft methodology
consists of identifying five prioritization categories for these
actions, determining where (into which category) each action belongs,
and using that information to establish the order in which we plan to
complete status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings on petitions
to list species under the Act. This prioritization of petition findings
will inform a multi-year National Listing Workplan for completing all
types of actions in the listing program workload--including not only
status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings, but also status
reviews initiated by the Service, proposed and final listing
determinations, and proposed and final critical habitat designations.
We intend to make the National Listing Workplan publically available on
our Web site (www.fws.gov/endangered/) and periodically update it as
circumstances warrant. This draft methodology for prioritizing
petitions to list species does not apply to actions to downlist a
species from an endangered species to a threatened species or to delist
a species. Further, this methodology does not replace our 1983
Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR 43098), which applies to species
that have already been determined to warrant a listing proposal;
rather, it complements it and can be used in conjunction with it. As
with the 1983 guidelines, this draft methodology must be viewed as a
guide and should not be looked upon as an inflexible framework for
determining resource allocations (See 48 FR 43098). It is not intended
to be binding. The draft methodology to be used in prioritizing actions
and identified herein incorporates numerous objectives--including
acting on the species that are most in need of, and that would most
benefit from, listing under the Act first, and maximizing the
efficiency of the listing program.
We plan to evaluate unresolved status reviews and accompanying 12-
month findings for upcoming listing actions and prioritize them using
the prioritization categories and additional considerations identified
in this draft methodology to assign each action to one of five priority
categories, or ``bins,'' as described below. In prioritizing status
reviews and accompanying 12-month findings, we will consider
information from the 90-day finding, any petitions, and any other
information in our files. We recognize that we may not always have in
our files the information necessary to assign an action to the correct
bin, so we plan to also work with State fish and wildlife agencies,
Native American Tribes, and other appropriate conservation partners who
have management responsibility for these species or relevant scientific
data to obtain the information necessary to allow us to accurately
prioritize specific actions.
This priority system will assist us in compiling outstanding
workload into a multi-year National Listing Workplan designed to
address the species with the highest need first. It is our intention
that the National Listing Workplan balance addressing the large backlog
of status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings with making
progress on other listing actions, such as making final listing
determinations for candidate species and designating critical habitat.
While this draft methodology was developed primarily to prioritize the
outstanding status reviews and accompanying 12-month petition findings,
the considerations raised in our prioritization categories may also be
useful in prioritizing other actions in the listing program as we
develop the National Listing Workplan each year. Prior to the start of
each fiscal year, we will update the National Listing Workplan as new
information is obtained. We will share the National Listing Workplan
with other Federal agencies, State fish and wildlife agencies, Native
American Tribes, and other stakeholders and the public at large through
posting on our Web site (www.fws.gov/endangered/).
Priority Bins
Below we describe the categories we have identified for
prioritizing listing actions and the information that factors into
placing specific actions into the appropriate priority bin. Note that
an action need not meet every facet of a particular bin in order to be
placed in that bin. If an action meets the conditions for more than one
bin, the Service will seek to prioritize that action by taking into
consideration any case-specific information relevant to determining
what prioritization would, overall, best advance the objectives of this
draft methodology--including protecting the species that are most in
need of, and that would benefit most from, listing under the Act first,
and maximizing the efficiency of the listing program.
(1) Highest Priority--Critically Imperiled: Highest priority will
be given to a species experiencing severe threat levels across a
majority of its range, resulting in severe population-level impacts.
Species that are critically imperiled and need immediate listing action
in order to prevent extinction will be given highest priority.
(2) Strong Data Already Available on Status: Species for which we
currently have strong information concerning the species' status will
receive next highest priority. We acknowledge that the Act requires
that we base our decisions on the best available information at the
time we make a determination, and we will continue to adhere to that
requirement. Our experience implementing the Act has shown us that
[[Page 2231]]
high-quality scientific information leads to stronger, more defensible
decisions that have increased longevity. Therefore, we will generally
place species for which we have particularly strong scientific data
supporting a clear decision on status--either a decision that the
species warrants listing or does not warrant listing--at a higher
priority than species in Bins 3, 4, and 5, discussed below.
(3) New Science Underway to Inform Key Uncertainties: As stated
previously, a higher quality of scientific information leads to better
decision-making, which focuses our resources on providing protections
associated with endangered and threatened species listing on species
most in need. Scientific uncertainty regarding a species' status is
often encountered in listing decisions. For circumstances when that
uncertainty can be resolved within a reasonable timeframe because
emerging science (e.g., taxonomy, genetics, threats) is underway to
answer key questions that may influence the listing determination,
those species will be prioritized for action next after those with
existing strong information bases. This bin is appropriate when the
emerging science or study is already underway, or a report is expected
soon, or the data exist, but they need to be compiled and analyzed.
Placing a species in this bin does not put off working on the listing
action; it just prioritizes work on species in Bins 1 and 2 for
completion first. Moreover, species do not remain in this bin
indefinitely; a species for which ongoing research is not expected to
produce results in the near future would not be placed in this bin, and
any species that is placed in this bin will be moved to another bin
after the research results become available. With the new, emerging
information, a more informed decision could be made (e.g., a species'
status could be determined fairly readily through surveys or other
research).
(4) Conservation Opportunities in Development or Underway: Where
efforts to conserve species are organized, underway, and likely to
address the threats to the species, we will consider these species as
our fourth highest priority. In order for a species to be appropriately
placed in this bin, conservation agreements and commitments should be
completed in time for consideration in the status review and
accompanying 12-month finding and in an amount of time that provides
landowners or other entities adequate opportunity to enroll prior to
any listing decision. Placing a species in this bin does not put off
working on the listing action; it just prioritizes work on species in
Bins 1, 2, and 3 for completion first.
(5) Limited Data Currently Available: Species for which we know
almost nothing about its threats or status will be given fifth highest
priority. If we do not have much information about a species without
conducting research or further analysis, the species would be suitably
placed in this bin. Placing a species in this bin does not put off
working on the listing action; it just prioritizes work on species in
Bins 1, 2, 3, and 4 for completion first.
According to the standard under the Act, we need to make listing
decisions based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
Because the best available data for species in this bin may be very
limited, even if the Service conducts further research, we will place a
higher priority on work for those species for which we have more and
better data already available.
Additional Considerations
The following considerations will also be used to inform
implementation of the prioritization process, development of the
National Listing Workplan, and any necessary internal ranking within
each bin (i.e., as tie-breakers within a bin):
The level of complexity surrounding the status review and
accompanying 12-month finding, such as the degree of controversy,
biological complexity, or whether the status review and accompanying
12-month finding covers multiple species or spans multiple regions of
the Service.
The extent to which the protections of the Act would be
able to improve conditions for that species and its habitat or also
provide benefits to many other species. For example, a species
primarily under threat due to sea level rise from the effects of
climate change is unlikely to have its condition much improved by the
protections of the Act. By contrast, a species primarily under threat
due to habitat destruction from grazing practices on public lands would
more directly benefit from the protections of the Act.
Whether there are opportunities to maximize efficiency by
batching multiple species for the purpose of status reviews, petition
findings, or listing determinations. For example, actions could be
batched by taxon, by species with like threats, by similar geographic
location, or other similar circumstances. Batching may result in lower-
priority actions that are tied to higher-priority actions being
completed earlier than they would otherwise.
Whether there are any special circumstances whereby an
action should be bumped up (or down) in priority when internally
ranking actions within a bin or developing the National Listing
Workplan. One limitation that might result in divergence from priority
order is when the current highest priorities are clustered in a
geographic area, such that our scientific expertise at the field office
level is fully occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that
the geographic distribution of our scientific expertise will in some
cases require us to balance workload across geographic areas.
Request for Information
Section 4(h) of the ESA requires that, when the Secretary
establishes guidelines to insure that the purposes of Section 4 are
achieved efficiently and effectively, the Secretary provide to the
public notice of, and opportunity to submit written comments on, those
guidelines. In addition, we intend that a final methodology for
prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings for
listing will consider information and recommendations from all
interested parties. We therefore solicit comments, information, and
recommendations from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry groups, environmental interest groups,
and any other interested parties. All comments and materials we receive
by the date listed above in DATES will be considered prior to the
adoption of a final methodology.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
We seek comments and recommendations in particular on:
(1) Whether this draft methodology sets out clearly defined
conditions for the prioritization bins. If not, please provide detailed
comments so that we can clarify our methodology.
(2) Whether there may be other factors or considerations that
should be incorporated into our methodology.
(3) Whether our draft methodology makes logical sense and will
result in an appropriate use of our limited resources.
Determinations Under Other Authorities
As mentioned above, we intend to use this methodology to prioritize
work on
[[Page 2232]]
status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings and to assist with
prioritizing actions in order to develop the National Listing Workplan
for each fiscal year. Below we make determinations provided for under
several Executive Orders and statutes that may apply where a Federal
action is not a binding rule or regulation.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We are analyzing this draft methodology in accordance with the
criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.), the Department of the Interior regulations on Implementation
of the National Environmental Policy Act (43 CFR 46.10-46.450), and the
Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6 and 8). We invite the
public to comment on the extent to which this draft methodology may
have a significant impact on the human environment, or fall within one
of the categorical exclusions for actions that have no individual or
cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. We will
complete our analysis, in compliance with NEPA, before finalizing this
methodology.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This draft methodology does not contain any collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). This draft methodology will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' and the Department of
the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, and the Department of Commerce
American Indian and Alaska Native Policy (March 30, 1995), we have
considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and
have preliminarily determined that there are no potential adverse
effects of issuing this draft methodology. Our intent with this draft
methodology is to provide transparency to Tribes and other stakeholders
in the prioritization of our upcoming workload. We will continue to
work with Tribes as we finalize this draft methodology and obtain the
information necessary to accurately bin specific actions and develop
our National Listing Workplan.
Authors
The primary authors of this draft policy are the staff members of
the Division of Conservation and Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 6, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00616 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
