30-Day Notice

26034

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices

III. Comments
We invite comments concerning this
information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or
summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this IC. Before
including your address, phone number,
email address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment, including your
personal identifying information, may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: April 26, 2012.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–10579 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R9–ES–2012–N089; 4500030113]

Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:

We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for
review and approval. We summarize the
ICR below and describe the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost. This information collection is
scheduled to expire on May 31, 2012.
We may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. However, under OMB
regulations, we may continue to
conduct or sponsor this information
collection while it is pending at OMB.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before June 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and
suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or
OIRA_DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov (email).
SUMMARY:

Number of
respondents

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Activity

Please provide a copy of your comments
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail), or INFOCOL@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0119’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
INFOCOL@fws.gov (email) or 703–358–
2482 (telephone). You may review the
ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov.
Follow the instructions to review
Department of the Interior collections
under review by OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control Number: 1018–0119.
Title: Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE).
Service Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Extension of
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: Primarily
State, local, or tribal governments.
However, individuals, businesses, and
not-for-profit organizations could
develop agreements/plans or may agree
to implement certain conservation
efforts identified in a State agreement/
plan.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Completion
time per
response

Number of
responses

Total annual
burden hours

Original Agreement ..........................................................................................
Monitoring ........................................................................................................
Reporting .........................................................................................................

4
7
7

4
7
7

2,000
600
120

8,000
4,200
840

Totals ........................................................................................................

18

18

........................

13,040

Abstract: Section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) specifies the process by which we
can list species as threatened or
endangered. When we consider whether
or not to list a species, the ESA requires
us to take into account the efforts being
made by any State or any political
subdivision of a State to protect such
species. We also take into account the
efforts being made by other entities.
States or other entities often formalize
conservation efforts in conservation
agreements, conservation plans,
management plans, or similar
documents. The conservation efforts
recommended or called for in such
documents could prevent some species

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:55 May 01, 2012

Jkt 226001

from becoming so imperiled that they
meet the definition of a threatened or
endangered species under the ESA.
The Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100,
March 28, 2003) encourages the
development of conservation
agreements/plans and provides certainty
about the standard that an individual
conservation effort must meet for us to
consider whether it contributes to
forming a basis for making a decision
about the listing of a species. PECE
applies to ‘‘formalized conservation
efforts’’ that have not been implemented
or have been implemented but have not

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

yet demonstrated if they are effective at
the time of a listing decision.
Under PECE, formalized conservation
efforts are defined as conservation
efforts (specific actions, activities, or
programs designed to eliminate or
reduce threats or otherwise improve the
status of a species) identified in a
conservation agreement, conservation
plan, management plan, or similar
document. To assist us in evaluating a
formalized conservation effort under
PECE, we collect information such as a
conservation plan, monitoring results,
or progress reports. The development of
such agreements/plans is voluntary.
There is no requirement that the
individual conservation efforts included

E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM

02MYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices
in such documents be designed to meet
the standard in PECE. The PECE policy
is posted on our Candidate Conservation
Web site at http://www.fws.gov/
endangered/what-we-do/candidateconservation-process.html.
Comments: On November 15, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register
(76 FR 70748) a notice of our intent to
request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that
notice, we solicited comments for 60
days, ending on January 17, 2012. We
received two comments in response to
this notice.
Commenter 1 agreed that the
collection of information is necessary.
The commenter recommends that the
PECE policy be vetted with
nongovernment organizations (NGOs),
States, and Federal agencies so that
when these groups are developing
conservation efforts for species that may
be petitioned to be listed under the ESA,
they understand the evaluation bar that
must be met in order for their
conservation efforts to be considered as
part of the Service’s listing
determination.
Response: On June 13, 2000, we
published a Federal Register notice (65
FR 37102) soliciting public comments
on the draft policy. We received
comments from 44 entities, primarily
States and NGOs. We evaluated these
comments and incorporated them into
the final policy, which includes a
section on the evaluation criteria that
conservation efforts must meet. The
final policy is posted on our Candidate
Conservation Web page (http://
www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/
candidate-conservation-process.html)
and on our Laws and Policies Web page
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered/lawspolicies/regulations-and-policies.html).
Commenter 2 objected to paying for
the collection of information and said
that funding should be eliminated. The
commenter also said its purpose is not
explained very well.
Response: Evaluation of conservation
actions as part of our listing decision is
required by the ESA, and therefore
cannot be eliminated. An explanation of
the policy and the policy itself are
posted on our Candidate Conservation
Web page. The commenter did not
provide comments on the burden
estimate; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of information; or on
the ways to minimize the burden.
Commenter 1 agreed that the PECE
policy will not have a $100 million
annual effect or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of
government in the collection of data.
However, the commenter stated that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:55 May 01, 2012

Jkt 226001

implementation of conservation efforts
measures associated with the listing
under the ESA will certainly meet both
the monetary bar and the adverse
impacts bar.
Response: The burden estimates for
implementing conservation actions
covered by this information collection
are limited to the amount of time
needed to prepare the conservation
agreements and to conduct the
monitoring and reporting. The burden
estimates do not cover the monetary
cost of implementing the conservation
measures themselves. The ESA specifies
that we must base listing determinations
solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available
(emphasis added) after conducting a
review of the status of the species and
after taking into account those
conservation practices, if any, being
made by any State or any political
subdivision of a State to protect such
species. In making a listing
determination, we also consider the
conservation efforts of entities other
than States and political subdivisions of
States. The PECE policy describes how
we will evaluate, as part of the listing
determination, the extent which these
conservation actions reduce the threats
facing a species. Under the requirements
of the ESA, we cannot use economic
impacts as part of our listing
determination.
Commenter 1 stated that the PECE
policy is not well distributed or
understood, and claimed that finding
the most recent PECE was difficult. The
commenter suggested that we provide a
link to the most recent version for future
review, and stated that better
dissemination and explanation of the
policy would bolster the quality, utility
and clarity of the information.
Response: See above for links to the
policy.
Commenter 1 stated that it is in the
State’s best interest to have conservation
programs be successful and to allow
activities that have and will occur
across the landscape to continue. The
commenter does not mind providing
this information, provided that the
Service will be acting in good faith to
advance the conservation program to an
approved State.
Response: We coordinate closely with
State wildlife management agencies in
the conservation and management of
endangered and threatened species
under the ESA. State wildlife agencies
are our primary conservation partners,
and we routinely share data with them.
In addition, under section 6 of the ESA,
we provide grants to States and
territories to participate in a wide array
of voluntary conservation projects for

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

26035

candidate, proposed, and listed species.
The grant program provides funding to
States and territories for species and
habitat conservation actions on nonFederal lands. A State or territory must
currently have, or enter into, an
approved cooperative agreement with
the Secretary of the Interior to receive
grants. Most States and territories have
entered into these agreements for both
plant and animal species.
We have not made any changes to our
information collection requirements as a
result of these comments.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: April 26, 2012.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–10576 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–R–2012–N047;
FXRS12650400000S3–123–FF04R02000]

St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge,
FL; Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:

We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM

02MYN1