[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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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