Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 16, 2021 / Notices current population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; 2 identification of the factors under section 4a1 of the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species; 3 whether and to what extent any or all of the factors alone or in combination identified in section 4a1
of the ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened species i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future, and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are;
4 information on adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by states as well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and 5
a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14d.
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the new information, along with the previously submitted information, is treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information is received.
See 50 CFR 424.14g.
We may also consider information readily available at the time the determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials e.g., publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities. See 50
CFR 424.14c6.
The substantial scientific or commercial information standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species whether in response to a petition or on our own initiative, we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency actionsuch
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:52 Mar 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

as a final listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-warranted findinga petitioned action will generally not be considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information or analyses not previously considered.
At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petitions information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating that the species may meet the ESAs requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA.
First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, in light of the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a species eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species e.g., population abundance and trends,
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

14409

productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation, and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species.
We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4a1.
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA.
Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, alone, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature IUCN, the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species conservation status do not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act because NatureServe assessments have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide https
explorer.natureserve.org/
AboutTheData/DataTypes/Conservation StatusCategories. Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA
are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

E:FRFM16MRN1.SGM

16MRN1