Published 30-day FRN

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Notices
Draft Recovery Plan
Below, we summarize components
from our draft recovery plan. Please
reference the draft recovery plan for full
details.
The draft recovery plan describes the
recovery goal for the Mosquito Range
mustard as its long-term viability in the
wild. For recovery, the species needs at
least 11 (redundant) persistent
(resilient) populations across the
species’ range, where population trends
are stable or increasing and ecological
and genetic diversity are maintained
(representation). This would be
achieved by implementing recovery
actions, such as protecting, conserving,
and monitoring known populations,
surveying for additional populations,
and coordinating with stakeholders.
The draft recovery plan includes
recovery criteria for delisting. The
delisting criteria include:
(1) Maintaining population trends for
the Mosquito Range mustard that are
stable or increasing, according to
objective measures that are described in
the draft recovery plan; and
(2) Maintaining existing regulatory
mechanisms or other conservation plans
that currently provide protections for
Mosquito Range mustard and including
protections in any new or amended land
management plans on Federal lands.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994,
peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1,
1994); our August 22, 2016, Director’s
Memo on the Peer Review Process; and
the Office of Management and Budget’s
December 16, 2004, Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
(revised June 2012), we will seek the
expert opinion of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists
regarding scientific data and
interpretations contained in the species
biological report and the draft recovery
plan. We will send copies of both
documents to the peer reviewers
immediately following publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. We
will ensure that the opinions of peer
reviewers are objective and unbiased by
following the guidelines set forth in the
Director’s Memo, which updates and
clarifies Service policy on peer review
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016).
The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analysis. Accordingly, our final
species biological report and recovery
plan may differ from the draft
documents. We will post the results of
this structured peer review process on
our website at https://www.fws.gov/

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:44 Jul 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

mountain-prairie/science/
peerReview.php. We also submitted our
biological report to our Federal and
State partners for their scientific review.
The biological report is the scientific
foundation for the draft recovery plan.
Request for Public Comments
All comments we receive by the date
specified (see DATES) will be considered
prior to approval of the recovery plan.
Written comments and materials
regarding the recovery plan should be
sent via one of the means in the
ADDRESSES section.
We will consider all information we
receive during the public comment
period, and particularly look for
comments that provide scientific
rationale or factual background. The
Service and other Federal agencies and
partners will take these comments into
consideration in the course of
implementing an approved final
recovery plan. We are specifically
seeking comments and suggestions on
the following questions:
• Understanding that the time and
cost presented in the draft recovery plan
will be fine-tuned when localized
recovery implementation strategies are
developed, do you think that the
estimated time and cost to recovery are
realistic? Is the estimate reflective of the
time and cost of actions that may have
already been implemented by Federal,
State, county, or other agencies? Please
provide suggestions or methods for
determining a more accurate estimation.
• Do the draft recovery criteria
provide clear direction to partners on
what is needed to recover Mosquito
Range mustard? How could they be
improved for clarity?
• Are the draft recovery criteria both
objective and measurable given the
information available for Mosquito
Range mustard now and into the future?
Please provide suggestions.
• Understanding that specific,
detailed, and area-specific recovery
actions will be developed in the RIS, do
you think that the draft recovery actions
presented in the draft recovery plan
generally cover the types of actions
necessary to meet the recovery criteria?
If not, what general actions are missing?
Are any of the draft recovery actions
unnecessary for achieving recovery?
Have we prioritized the actions
appropriately?
Public Availability of Comments
We will summarize and respond to
the issues raised by the public in an
appendix to the approved final recovery
plan. Before including your address,
phone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

35821

comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
You may request at the top of your
comment that we withhold this
information from public review;
however, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16
U.S.C. 1533(f).
Matthew Hogan,
Deputy Regional Director, Lakewood,
Colorado.
[FR Doc. 2021–14464 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–ES–2021–N166;
FXHC11140900000–212–FF09E33000; OMB
Control Number 1018–0148]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget for Review
and Approval; Land-Based Wind
Energy Guidelines
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), are proposing to renew an
information collection.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before August 6,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under Review—Open for
Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function. Please provide a copy
of your comments to the Service
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or
by email to Info_Coll@fws.gov. Please
reference OMB Control Number 1018–
0148 in the subject line of your
comments.
SUMMARY:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madonna L. Baucum, Service

E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM

07JYN1

35822

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Notices

Information Collection Clearance
Officer, by email at Info_Coll@fws.gov,
or by telephone at (703) 358–2503.
Individuals who are hearing or speech
impaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8339 for TTY
assistance. You may also view the
information collection request (ICR) at
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain.
In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we
provide the general public and other
Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on new, proposed, revised,
and continuing collections of
information. This helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. It also helps the
public understand our information
collection requirements and provide the
requested data in the desired format.
On December 22, 2020, we published
in the Federal Register (85 FR 83607) a
notice of our intent to request that OMB
approve this information collection. In
that notice, we solicited comments for
60 days, ending on February 22, 2021.
We received two comments in response
to that notice:
Comment 1: Comment received via
email on December 29, 2020, from V.
Weeks, which stated any data collection
should be mandatory in order to have
viable information.
Agency Response to Comment 1: The
Service does not have regulatory
authority to require this information
collection. Therefore, we decline to
make the requested change. The
viability of data received under this
collection is related to the methods and
metrics used and relevance to inform
decision-making.
Comment 2: Comment received via
email on March 22, 2021, from Tom
Vinson, Vice President, Policy &
Regulatory Affairs, American Clean
Power Association (ACP). The ACP
provided several comments and
suggestions, numbered below and
responded to below with corresponding
numbering.
1. The Land–Based Wind Energy
Guidelines (WEGs) continue to form a
practical approach to assess and
minimize wind energy impacts to
wildlife. The tiered development
framework in the WEGs is fully
integrated into the land-based wind
energy development process.
2. Depending on the available
information at each Tier, the Service has
noted that the tiered approach does not
require that every Tier, or every element

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:44 Jul 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

within each Tier, be implemented for
every project. The American Clean
Power Association (ACP) agrees with
this statement. For example, if a project
is an additional phase to an existing
project that has already gone through
relevant Tiers, and the geography and
habitat are similar, repeating Tiers on
this new phase likely will not be
necessary.
3. ACP agrees with statements made
by Service that the WEGs ‘‘promote
effective communication among wind
energy developers and Federal, State,
Tribal, and local conservation agencies.
When used in concert with appropriate
regulatory tools, the Guidelines are the
best practical approach for conserving
species of concern.’’
4. ACP believes the estimate of the
‘‘annual number of respondents’’ in the
Information Collection notice and the
correlated total annual burden hours are
low based on the number of wind
facilities placed into service, under
construction, or in an advanced phase of
development as of the end of 2020. For
every project constructed, there are 5–10
projects that are cancelled for one
reason or another (wildlife or
otherwise). Those projects have likely
utilized Tier 1, potentially Tier 2, and
in some cases, Tier 3. Also, projects may
be built in phases with each phase being
a separate entity, and the extent to
which individual entities use the WEGs
for individual project phases, or for a
portfolio of phases within a geographic
area, may differ. Thus, even though one
set of WEG Tiers was applied, it may
have covered up to five or six separate
projects.
5. The number of wind projects going
into service or starting development in
any given year will continue to grow.
Based on discussions with members,
ACP believes a majority of wind
facilities will continue to adhere to the
WEGs. Therefore, ACP suggests that the
assumption on the number of projects
each year going through WEG Tiers 1–
4 is too low. Tiers 1–2 should be
increased to include at least all projects
put into service each year (90 in 2020)
and then increase that number by a
factor of 5 or 10. Tiers 3–4 should also
be increased to include all the projects
placed into service in a given year.
6. ACP provided an attachment that
provides an estimate of the paperwork
and respondent burden required for the
wind industry to collect the data
associated with the WEGs on a per
project basis, based on discussions with
project developers and consultants.
Actual costs vary based on project
details, company, consultant, regulatory
requirements etc., however, ACP
believes these updated estimates are a

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

more accurate reflection of the costs
necessary to adhere to the WEGs. ACP
respectfully requested that the Service
utilize these estimates, combined with
other assumed costs (e.g., government
agency costs) in this and any other
analysis of the WEGs going forward.
Agency Response to Comment 2: The
Service provides the following
responses corresponding to the
comment number above:
1. The Service appreciates this
feedback on the utility of the WEGs and
integration of these voluntary guidelines
into wind industry development
practices. No action necessary.
2. The Service appreciates this
feedback on the flexibility of the WEGs.
We also note that use of the WEGs is
voluntary, and when a developer
decides to follow the tiered process
outlined in the voluntary guidelines,
decisions as to which Tiers are
applicable at an individual project
should be made in communication and
coordination with the Service. No action
necessary.
3. The Service appreciates this
feedback on the role of the WEGs. No
action necessary.
4. The Service will consider the data
supplied by ACP regarding the annual
number of respondents and make
adjustments as appropriate.
5. The Service appreciates the
information provided by ACP regarding
the anticipated increase in wind energy
development in the U.S., and the
feedback from the wind industry
indicating that the WEGs will continue
to be implemented by a majority of
developers and operators in the U.S. We
will adjust the number of respondents
for each Tier of the WEGs as appropriate
based on the information you have
provided.
6. The Service thanks ACP for
compiling this information and will use
the figures provided to adjust our
estimates as appropriate.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we are again soliciting
comments from the public and other
Federal agencies on the proposed ICR
that is described below. We are
especially interested in public comment
addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether or not the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;

E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM

07JYN1

35823

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Notices

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of response.
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 us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Abstract: As wind energy production
increased, both developers and wildlife
agencies recognized the need for a
system to evaluate and address the
potential negative impacts of wind
energy projects on species of concern.
As a result, the Service worked with the
wind energy industry, conservation
nongovernmental organizations, Federal
and State agencies, Tribes, and
academia to develop the voluntary
Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines
(Guidelines; http://www.fws.gov/
windenergy) to provide a structured,
scientific process for addressing wildlife
conservation concerns at all stages of
land-based wind energy development.
Released in 2012, the Guidelines
promote effective communication
among wind energy developers and
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
conservation agencies. When used in
concert with appropriate regulatory
tools, the Guidelines are the best
practical approach for conserving
species of concern.
The Guidelines discuss various risks
to species of concern from wind energy
projects, including collisions with wind
turbines and associated infrastructure;
loss and degradation of habitat from
turbines and infrastructure;
fragmentation of large habitat blocks

into smaller segments that may not
support sensitive species; displacement
and behavioral changes; and indirect
effects such as increased predator
populations or introduction of invasive
plants. The Guidelines assist developers
in identifying species of concern that
may potentially be affected by proposed
projects, including but not limited to:
• Migratory birds;
• Bats;
• Bald and golden eagles, and other
birds of prey;
• Prairie chickens and sage grouse;
and
• Species that have been identified as
candidates, or proposed or listed under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Guidelines follow a tiered
approach. The wind energy developer
begins at Tier 1 or Tier 2, which entails
the gathering of existing data to help
identify any potential risks to wildlife
and their habitats at proposed wind
energy project sites. The developer then
proceeds through subsequent tiers, as
appropriate, to collect information in
increasing detail until the level of risk
is adequately ascertained to inform the
developer’s decision on whether or not
to develop the site. Many projects may
not proceed beyond Tier 1 or 2, when
developers become aware of potential
barriers, including high risks to wildlife.
Developers would only have an interest
in adhering to the Guidelines for those
projects that proceed beyond Tier 1 or
2.
At each tier, wind energy developers
and operators should retain
documentation to provide to the
Service. Such documentation may
include copies of correspondence with
the Service, results of pre- and postconstruction studies conducted at
project sites, bird and bat conservation
strategies, or any other record that
supports a developer’s adherence to the
Guidelines. The extent of the
documentation will depend on the
conditions of the site being developed.
Sites with greater risk of impacts to
wildlife and habitats will likely involve
more extensive communication with the
Service and longer durations of pre- and
post-construction studies than sites with
little risk.
Distributed or community-scale wind
energy projects are unlikely to have

significant adverse impacts to wildlife
and their habitats. The Guidelines
recommend that developers of these
small-scale projects conduct the desktop
analysis described in Tier 1 or Tier 2
using publicly available information to
determine whether they should
communicate with the Service. Since
such project designs usually include a
single turbine associated with existing
development, conducting a Tier 1 or
Tier 2 analysis for distributed or
community-scale wind energy projects
should incur limited non-hour burden
costs. For such projects, if there is no
potential risk identified, a developer
will have no need to communicate with
the Service regarding the project or to
conduct studies described in Tiers 3, 4,
and 5.
Adherence to the Guidelines is
voluntary. Following the Guidelines
does not relieve any individual,
company, or agency of the responsibility
to comply with applicable laws and
regulations (i.e., species protected by
the Endangered Species Act and/or Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668–668c)).
This information collection was first
approved by OMB in 2012 and
subsequently renewed twice, in 2015
and 2018.
Title of Collection: Land-Based Wind
Energy Guidelines.
OMB Control Number: 1018–0148.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public:
Developers and operators of wind
energy facilities.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: $73,697,500. Costs will
depend on the size and complexity of
issues associated with each project.
These expenses may include, but are not
limited to: Travel expenses for site
visits, studies conducted, and meetings
with the Service and other Federal and
State agencies; training in survey
methodologies; data management;
special transportation, such as allterrain vehicles or helicopters;
equipment needed for acoustic,
telemetry, or radar monitoring; and
carcass storage.

Requirement

Annual
number of
respondents

Number of
responses
each

Total annual
responses

Tier 1 (Desktop Analysis)
Reporting ......................................................................
Recordkeeping ..............................................................

630
........................
........................

1
........................
........................

630
........................
........................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:04 Jul 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM

07JYN1

Completion
time per
response
(hours)

52.5
1

Total
annual
burden
hours

33,075
630

35824

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Notices

Tier 2 (Site characterization)
Reporting ......................................................................
Recordkeeping ..............................................................
Tier 3 (Pre-construction studies)
Reporting ......................................................................
Recordkeeping ..............................................................
Tier 4 (Post-construction fatality monitoring and habitat
studies)
Reporting ......................................................................
Recordkeeping ..............................................................
Tier 5 (Other post-construction studies)
Reporting ......................................................................
Recordkeeping ..............................................................
Totals .....................................................................

An agency 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.
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Madonna Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–14410 Filed 7–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–ES–2021–N022;
FXES11130400000C2–201–FF04E00000]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for
Agave eggersiana
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and
request for public comment.
AGENCY:

We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of the draft recovery plan for
the Agave eggersiana, a plant listed as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. We request review and
comment on this draft recovery plan
from local, State, and Federal agencies;
nongovernmental organizations; and the
public.
DATES: We must receive comments by
September 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES:
Obtaining documents: You may
obtain a copy of the plan by contacting
Maritza Vargas, by mail at U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological
Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491,
Boquero´n, PR 00622; by telephone at

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:44 Jul 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

Total
annual
burden
hours

Number of
responses
each

Total annual
responses

473
........................

1
........................

473
........................

210
3

99,330
1,419

90
........................

1
........................

90
........................

2,695
5

242,550
450

90
........................

1
........................

90
........................

3,600
5

324,000
450

5
........................
1,288

1
........................
........................

5
........................
1,288

2,100
5
........................

10,500
25
712,429

787–851–7297; by the Federal Relay
Service (TTY) at 1–800–877–8339.
Alternatively, you may obtain a copy at
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/
caribbean.
Submitting comments: If you wish to
comment, you may submit your
comments by mail to the Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office, at the
above address, or you may email
comments to maritza_vargas@fws.gov.
Please include ‘‘Agave eggersiana Draft
Recovery Plan Comments’’ in the email
subject line.
For additional information about
submitting comments, see Public
Comments below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maritza Vargas at 787–851–7297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
announce the availability for public
review and comment of the draft
recovery plan for Agave eggersiana, a
plant listed as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The draft recovery plan
includes specific recovery objectives
and criteria we have identified to better
assist us in determining when the
species has recovered to the point that
it may be reclassified as threatened, or
that the protections of the ESA are no
longer necessary. We request review and
comment on this draft recovery plan
from local, State, and Federal agencies;
nongovernmental organizations; and the
public.
Background
Agave eggersiana (no common name)
is a flowering plant of the Agavaceae
family (century plant family). The
species is restricted to six natural
populations, and seven additional
populations established in different
areas known to be part of its historical
range. These populations occur in small,
disjunct areas on the northern and

PO 00000

Completion
time per
response
(hours)

Annual
number of
respondents

Requirement

Frm 00096

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

southern coasts of St. Croix in the U.S.
Virgin Islands. Agave eggersiana
commonly occurs on coastal cliffs with
rocky formations covered with sparse
vegetation and dry coastal scrubland
vegetation communities that occur
within the subtropical dry forest life
zone.
The ESA states that a species may be
listed as endangered or threatened based
on one or more of the five factors
outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
The greatest threats to Agave eggersiana
are loss or degradation of habitat in
unstable coastal cliffs (Listing Factor A)
and competition with non-native
vegetation for light and space via
succession (Listing Factor E). The
species’ severely restricted range and
small population increase the likelihood
of stochastic events causing extirpation
of stands or populations. As a result of
these threats, Agave eggersiana was
listed as endangered under the ESA on
September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53303).
Approximately 20.5 hectares (ha) (50.6
acres (ac)), distributed among 6 units on
the northern and southern coasts of St.
Croix, were designated as critical habitat
on September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53315).
Recovery Plan
Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires the
development of recovery plans for listed
species, unless such a plan would not
promote the conservation of a particular
species. The purpose of a recovery plan
is to provide an effective and feasible
roadmap for a species’ recovery, with
the goal of improving its status and
managing its threats to the point where
the protections of the ESA are no longer
needed. The ESA requires that, to the
maximum extent practicable, recovery
plans incorporate the following:
1. Objective, measurable criteria
which, when met, would result in a
determination that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered;

E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM

07JYN1