North Florida Field Office
Q1: What is a petition?
A1: A petition is a request filed under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) by an interested party asking that a species be listed on, delisted from, or reclassified on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Q2: What is a 90-day Finding?
A2: Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq .), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information (see Q7 below for more information on this standard) to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition. To the maximum extent practicable, the Service is to make this finding within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and publish notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register .
Q3: Who petitioned the Service and what did they request?
A3: The Service received a petition on March 13, 2002 from John A. Fritschie on behalf of the Partnership for a Sustainable Future of Brevard County, Florida; Indian River Audubon Society; Friends of the Scrub; Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group; Conradina Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society; Sea Turtle Preservation Society; League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, Inc.; and Barrier Island Preservation Association, Inc., and another petition on May 1, 2003 from Brett M. Paben, WildLaw Florida Office, on behalf of Save Our Big Scrub, Inc. B oth petitions requested that: (1) the Service reclassify the Florida scrub-jay from threatened to endangered and (2) critical habitat be designated in accordance with section 4 of the ESA.
The Florida scrub-jay is currently listed as a threatened species under the ESA. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, while an endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of its range.
Q4: Why was there been a delay in the issuance of a 90-day finding?
A4: Funding constraints precluded the Service from initiating the processing of the petitions in a timely manner.
Q5: Why is the Service moving forward on these petitions now?
A5: In March 2004, the Service received a complaint from some of the petitioners regarding our alleged failure to carry out the 90-day and 12-month findings on the status of the Florida scrub-jay. The Service and plaintiffs reached a court-approved settlement agreement in December 2004 in which the Service agreed to submit its 90-day finding to the Federal Register by January 15, 2006 and, if applicable, to submit a 12-month finding to the Federal Register by January 15, 2007.
Q6: What did the Service conclude?
A6: The Service reviewed the petitions and literature cited in the petitions. After this review and evaluation, we find the petitions do not present substantial information to indicate that reclassification of scrub-jays from threatened to endangered may be warranted at this time.
Q7: What did the Service consider in reaching its conclusion and finding?
A7: Per the ESA, the Service based this finding on information provided in the petitions. The standard for substantial information is outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding as “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
In making this finding, we evaluated the information provided by the petitioners in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. We do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to rigorous critical review.
Q8: What is the next step?
A8: No further petition-related action will be taken.
Q9: What does this mean for the scrub-jay's future?
A9: Service staffs will continue to monitor the species' population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might be important with regard to the conservation of the scrub-jay across its range. Stakeholders and other interested parties are encouraged to continue to gather data that could assist with the conservation of the species and submit this information to the Service at anytime
Q10: Where can I find more information on current and future actions related to Florida scrub-jays?
A10: Visit our web site at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida .
Fact Sheet Federal Register Notice Florida scrub-jay Home
Last modified January 25, 2006
USFWS, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, permit reviews, projects, species recovery, Florida, Fish and Wildlife, florida manatee, wildlife, endangered, threatened, endangered species act, ESA, marine mammal protection act, MMPA, eagles, whooping cranes, cranes, florida scrub-jay, scrub jay, jay, scrub, sea turtles, loggerhead, kemps ridley, kemp's ridley sea turtle, olive ridley, olive ridley seaturtle, hawksbill,hawksbill sea turtle, hawks bill, green sea turtle, leatherback, turtle, red-cockaded woodpeckers, woodpeckers, RCW, beach mouse, beach mice, mouse, snake, indigo sanke, recovery, regulation, regulatory, permit reviews, Section Seven, section 7, section 10, habitat, habitat conservation, habitat conservation plan, HCP, incidental take, incidental take permits, reviews, consultation, north florida, nassau, duval, clay, st. johns, saint johns, bradford, putnam, flagler, volusia, seminole, orange, brevard, lake, sumter, hernando, pasco, pinellas, hillsborough, manatee, citrus, levy, dixie, alachua, marion, union, baker, columbia, suwannee, hamilton, madison, taylor, lafayette, gilchrist, tampa, jacksonville, gainesville, crystal river, orlando, st. petersburg, daytona, daytona beach, st. augustine, saint augustine, saint petersburg, orange park, lake city, palatka, Blue Spring, homosassa, springs, boating, resource, natural resources, recreation, property, development, growth, impacts, environment, enviromental, environmental impacts, recovery plans, recovery implementation, safe harbor, habitat, critical habitat, critical habitat designation