0466 ss ren 120508rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
SUBMISSION OF CONSERVATION EFFORTS TO MAKE LISTINGS UNNECESSARY
UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0466

INTRODUCTION
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), specifies the
process by which the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can list species as threatened or
endangered. The ESA requires NMFS, when considering whether to list a species, to take into
account “those efforts, if any, being made by any State . . . or any political subdivision of a state .
. . to protect such species.” NMFS and the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service
(Services) announced a final “Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions” (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), hereinafter referred to as the Policy.
Conservation efforts are often formalized in conservation agreements, conservation plans,
management plans, or other similar documents and are often developed with the specific intent
of making the listing of species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. Sometimes these
agreements or plans are not fully implemented or their results are not fully achieved at the time
NMFS must make a listing decision. These agreements or plans sometimes rely on future
voluntary participation by private landowners, as opposed to enacted protective legislation or
regulations. When an agreement or plan has not been fully implemented, its results have not been
fully achieved, or it relies on future voluntary conservation efforts, NMFS must assess the
likelihood that the efforts will be implemented and effective. The development of an agreement
or plan by a state or other entity is completely voluntary. When a state or other entity voluntarily
decides to develop an agreement or plan with the specific intent of making listing the subject
species unnecessary, the Services (NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service) will use the criteria
identified in the final Policy to evaluate formalized conservation efforts when making listing
decisions. The development of an agreement with the Services’ involvement, that has the
specific intention of making listing unnecessary, constitutes an information collection. One of
the criteria identified in this Policy is that such agreements and plans contain a provision for
monitoring and reporting the progress and results of implementation of conservation efforts. This
criterion also constitutes an information collection.
A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The development of conservation plans could prevent some species from becoming so imperiled
that the only recourse is to add them to the list of threatened and endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act. The purpose of this Policy is to encourage such plans and to give
applicants guidance about how the Services will evaluate such plans. This Policy identifies
criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of a conservation effort.
The Services developed this Policy to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of agreements
and plans in making listing decisions and to help States and other entities develop agreements
and plans that will be adequate for making listing species unnecessary.
1

In addition, conservation professionals have long considered monitoring and reporting to be an
essential component of scientifically sound agreements and plans and currently incorporate
monitoring and reporting into all agreements and plans. The Services included a criterion in this
Policy for monitoring and reporting provisions to ensure consistency with sound biological and
conservation principles and for completeness. Monitoring is the mechanism for confirming
success, detecting failure, and detecting changes in conditions requiring modifications to the
agreement or plan or possibly emergency conservation efforts by NMFS, states, or others. In
addition, monitoring is sometimes incorporated in agreements or plans as part of implementation
of experimental measures. Including provisions for monitoring and reporting is necessary to
demonstrate that the conservation efforts are likely to be implemented and effective.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
Any entity may develop a conservation plan. The criteria in the Policy will be used by the
Services to determine if implementation of the plan is likely to result in making a listing
unnecessary. This Policy is necessary because the Services have not had any previous criteria for
judging whether a plan will be implemented and will be effective. NMFS has lost some court
cases concerning conservation plans, and several states have requested that the Services provide
some certainty by publishing the criteria by which the Services will evaluate the likelihood of
implementation and effectiveness of a conservation effort. The information in a conservation
plan that a member of the public submits has utility in that it will be used to determine whether a
species should be listed as threatened or endangered.
The responsibility for monitoring the progress and results of implementation of an agreement or
plan is determined and agreed to during the development of the agreement or plan. In most
cases, the state or other entity which is leading development of the agreement or plan will
conduct the monitoring. However, specific efforts may be implemented and monitored by
NMFS, property owners, or other entities.
The nature of the monitoring and reporting component of an agreement or plan will vary
according to the species addressed, land ownership, specific conservation efforts, expertise of
participants, and other factors. Monitoring and reporting implementation of some efforts, such as
the removal of a structural hazard to the species, may involve a single and simple task
documenting the removal of the hazard. Monitoring of an agreement or plan which relies
primarily on protection or preservation of an area of habitat may involve a simple site inspection
to verify that the habitat has not been vandalized or otherwise adversely modified. Monitoring of
other efforts may involve more complicated and/or time-consuming efforts; for example,
monitoring habitat restoration efforts may involve conducting vegetation and species surveys
annually for several years. In addition, some species are easy to survey while others are difficult.
The information collected through monitoring is very valuable to NMFS, the states and other
entities implementing agreements and plans, and to others concerned about the welfare of the
species covered by the agreements and plans. Because the effectiveness of conservation efforts
is determined through monitoring, monitoring is essential for improving future conservation
efforts.
2

It is anticipated that the information collected (i.e., conservation plan) will be disseminated to the
public or used to support publicly disseminated information. As explained in the preceding
paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. NMFS will retain control over the information
and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and destruction, consistent with Federal
law and regulations, and Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. (NOAA) standards for
confidentiality, privacy and electronic information. See response to Question 10 of this
Supporting Statement for more information on confidentiality and privacy. Prior to
dissemination, the information will be subjected to quality control measures and a predissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
NMFS does not require, but will accept, plans and reports electronically. We have not developed
a form to be used for submission of plans or reports. In the past, we have made plans and annual
reports from states available through the Internet as examples, and plan to continue this practice.
The Policy is posted at http://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/publicsite/documents/policies/02109.pdf.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
Developing and submitting an agreement is necessary in order for NMFS to determine if it meets
the criteria included in the Policy. Monitoring individual agreements and plans is necessary
because they are species- and site-specific. As a matter of practice, NMFS, as well as the
developer of an agreement or plan, ensures that there is no duplication of effort within an
individual monitoring plan.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Although conservation efforts that are capable of making the listing of a species as threatened or
endangered unnecessary are usually developed by states or other units of government, small
businesses or small entities may develop agreements or plans or may agree to implement certain
conservation efforts identified in a state agreement or plan. However, the burden for developing
a plan or monitoring conservation efforts will be the same for small entities since the purpose of
each plan and monitoring is to conserve a species so that it does not require the protections of the
Endangered Species Act. The requirements announced in the Policy are the minimum criteria for
all efforts.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or Policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If a plan is not developed and submitted, NMFS may not be able to verify that actions are being
taken that will contribute to making a listing unnecessary. If monitoring is not conducted,
NMFS may not be able to verify that the conservation efforts are being implemented, or are
3

effective. NMFS may then determine that, based on the best available information, listing the
species is warranted.
NMFS does not require more monitoring than necessary to accomplish the objective of the plan
to be effective. If this level of effort was reduced, the agreement or plan would provide less
certainty that the efforts will be effective.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
NMFS generally asks states and other entities to submit monitoring reports annually, since most
monitoring consists of measuring annual vegetation growth or species population growth. In
addition, many agreements and plans are funded on an annual basis; monitoring annual progress
in implementation is most appropriate. However, NMFS may ask the state or other entity to
report certain accomplishments or conditions before the scheduled submittal of an annual report,
such as completion of construction of a habitat feature, the increase in severity of a threat, the
detection of a new threat, and other factors that may have important consequences for the
conservation of the species.
NMFS does not require states or other entities to retain monitoring reports or data. However,
states and other entities generally consider monitoring reports and data as important for planning
future conservation actions. Also, state law, regulations, or practices may require state agencies
to retain records for auditing purposes.
8. Provide information on the PRA Federal Register Notice that solicited public comments
on the information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments
received in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response
to those comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain
their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions
and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.
A Federal Register Notice, published on August 11, 2008 (73 FR 46590) solicited public
comment. No comments were received.
NMFS has consulted with outside entities to obtain their views on information collection
associated with this Policy. As stated above, monitoring and reporting the progress and results of
implementation of conservation efforts is considered an essential component of scientifically
sound agreements and plans by conservation professionals and are currently routinely
incorporated in agreements and plans. The Services included a criterion in this Policy requiring
agreements and plans to include monitoring and reporting provisions to ensure consistency with
sound biological and conservation principles and for completeness.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
NMFS does not provide payments or gifts to those submitting monitoring reports.
4

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency Policy.
NMFS has authority to protect confidential information to the extent provided under the
Freedom of Information Act. However, all monitoring reports are available for public review.
Sometimes a state may be concerned about releasing sensitive information such as species
locations on private lands. However, if collecting and/or reporting sensitive information is
necessary for assessing the progress and results of implementation of the agreement or plan, and
the state is unwilling or legally unable to collect and/or report this information, NMFS may
determine that the agreement or plan does not provide a high enough level of certainty that it will
be implemented and effective and that, therefore, listing is warranted. This authority is not
included in the Policy, but is deemed to be public knowledge.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
There are no sensitive questions asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Since 1997, NMFS has entered into three conservation agreements, which at that time, we
determined would contribute to removing the need to list the covered species as threatened or
endangered. For purposes of this exercise, we will assume that at least one agreement will be
developed annually with the intent of making listing unnecessary, and that at least every other
one of these will be successful in making listing unnecessary, and in this case, the states or other
entities who develop these agreements will carry through with their monitoring commitments in
order to keep the covered species off the list. Therefore, we estimate that two successful
agreements will be in place over the next three years.
NMFS estimates the states and other entities will spend an average of 1,000 to 4,000 hours, with
an average of 2,500 hours, to complete each agreement or plan that has the intention of making
listing unnecessary. This is a one time burden for each agreement developed. Based on a rate of
$50 per hour, we estimate that the cost to develop the agreement will average $125,000. As only
one entity is expected to develop an agreement in a given year, the total annual burden and labor
cost for developing agreements would be 2,500 hours and $125,000.
We further estimate that for each active agreement, an average of 320 hours will be spent to
conduct the monitoring, and 80 hours to prepare a report. Based on a rate of $50 per hour, we
estimate the cost to conduct the monitoring and to prepare a report to average $20,000. The
annual burden to 2 states or other entities to complete monitoring and reporting totals 800 hours
(2 x (320 + 80)). The total cost of monitoring and reporting associated with the Policy is,
therefore, $40,000.

5

Burden Estimates for Reporting Requirements for the Draft Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts in Making Listing Decisions
Type of
activity

Number

Average
time
Required
(hours)

Burden
hours

Developing
agreement
with intent to
preclude
listing
(onetime
burden)

1

2,500

2,500

Monitoring
(annual)

2

320

640

Report
preparation
(annual)

2

80

160

Total

5

3,300

States and other entities often have management responsibility for the species which become the
subject of agreements or plans. States and other entities routinely conduct monitoring and
reporting of these species and conservation efforts for these species as a part of on-going
management. In these cases, monitoring and reporting for purposes of compliance with this
Policy is not an added burden for the state or other entity.
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in Question
12 above).
We do not anticipate any costs to applicants beyond labor costs except for copying and mailing
plans and reports. We estimate that each plan and each annual report will cost about $50 for
copying and mailing with a total annual cost of about $150.00 (one plan and two reports).
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
NMFS estimates it will take an average of: 1) 160 hours to review each agreement or plan (since
one plan is expected each year, the annual burden for review would be 160 hours); 2) 2 hours to
review each report (with two reports per year, the annual burden would total 4 hours). The
annual labor costs for review of plans and reports, at a rate of $30 per hour, would total $4,920
(164 x $30).

6

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
There have not been any changes in burden or costs. Note: the reporting/recordkeeping cost
remains at $150, but in ROCIS, current cost is shown as zero, due to rounding of cost when
importing data into the system.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
Depending on public interest, publication of plans and reports may be made available through
the Federal Register or the Internet.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the OMB
83-I.
Not applicable.

B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

There is no statistical sampling or other respondent selection involved in this process.

7