[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 235 (Thursday, December 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64481-64485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30947]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Final 
Decision on Identification of Candidates for Listing as Endangered or 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has decided to 
discontinue the practice of maintaining a list of species regarded as 
``category-2 candidates.'' Future lists of species that are candidates 
for listing under the Endangered Species Act (Act) will be restricted 
to those species for which the Service has on file sufficient 
information to support issuance of a proposed listing rule. A variety 
of other lists describe ``species of concern'' or ``species in 
decline'' and the Service believes that these lists are more 
appropriate for use in land management planning and natural resource 
conservation efforts that extend beyond the mandates of the Act. The 
Service is committed to working closely with the State natural resource 
and natural heritage agencies, Territories and Tribes, other Federal 
agencies, and other interested parties to cooperatively identify new 
species that should be regarded as candidates for protection under the 
Act. The Service will continue to contract for, solicit, and accept 
information on the biological status and threats facing individual 
species on a continuing basis.

ADDRESSES: The complete record pertaining to this matter is available 
for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 
North Fairfax Drive, Room 452, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. LaVerne Smith, Chief, Division of 
Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (telephone: 703/358-
2171; facsimile: 703/358-1735) (see ADDRESSES section).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 28, 1996, the Service published a revised candidate 
notice of review in the Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that announced 
changes to the way the Service identifies species that are candidates 
for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service noted its intention to 
discontinue maintaining a list of species that were previously 
identified as ``Category-2 candidates.'' Category-2 candidates were 
species for which the Service had information indicating that 
protection under the Act may be warranted but for which it lacked 
sufficient information on status and threats to determine if elevation 
to ``category-1 candidate'' status was warranted.
    In addition to soliciting biological information on taxa that are 
candidates for listing under the Act, the Service also solicited public 
comments of a general nature when it announced the revisions to the 
candidate identification process in the February 28, 1996, notice (61 
FR 7596). The candidate notice specified no closing date for comments 
of either a general or a species-specific nature. On September 17, 
1996, the Service published in the Federal Register (61 FR 48875) a 
notice announcing that it would consider all public comments on the 
matter of discontinuing the practice of identifying category-2 
candidate species that were received on or before October 17, 1996. In 
the September 17, 1996, notice (61 FR 48875), the Service stated that 
it would publish a subsequent notice in the Federal Register addressing 
comments received and indicating a final decision on this issue and how 
the Service intends to identify species that are under consideration 
for possible addition to the list of endangered or threatened species.
    As solicited in the Service's February 28, 1996, candidate notice 
(61 FR 7596), comments and information relating to the biological 
status and threats of particular taxa that are, or should be, regarded 
as candidates for protection under the Act may be submitted at any time 
to the Regional Director of the Region identified as having lead 
responsibility. Biological status and threat information for species 
that do not have a designated lead Region should be submitted to the 
Division of Endangered Species, Washington, D.C. (see ADDRESSES 
section).
    When the Service first started publishing comprehensive lists of 
candidates and potential candidates, no comparable list existed because 
few organizations were tracking species of concern. Now, a number of 
agencies and organizations track species that may be declining, 
including State natural resource agencies and Natural Heritage 
Programs, Federal land-management agencies, the Biological Resources 
Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), professional societies, 
and conservation organizations. The added attention and wider range of 
focus means that there is vastly superior information available on 
species of concern than was maintained in the Service's list of 
category-2 species. Duplicative effort to maintain lists is not the 
best use of limited endangered species funding.
    The quality of the information supporting the former category-2 
list varied considerably, ranging from extremely limited or old data to 
fairly comprehensive assessments. It is the intent of the Service to 
work with all interested parties and to use scientifically credible 
sources of peer-reviewed information, when available, to identify new 
candidate species.
    The need for a species of concern list extends beyond 
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Using the old category-2 
list as a ``species of concern'' list was inappropriate; it is widely 
believed that sensitive, rare, and declining species are more inclusive 
than those found in the old category-2 list. Many Divisions of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, such as Migratory Birds, Refuges, Endangered 
Species, Habitat Conservation, Environmental Contaminants, and Fish and 
Wildlife Management Assistance will continue to work with partners to 
identify and protect species of concern.
    The result of such collaboration should be a far more comprehensive 
and

[[Page 64482]]

reliable accounting of biological resources that are declining or 
otherwise at risk. This approach is consistent with the purposes of 
numerous Federal environmental policies and statutes, not just the Act.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    The Service received 163 comment letters--one from a Federal 
agency, 10 from State agencies, and 152 from individuals or groups. One 
commenter supported the proposed action, 159 expressed concerns, and 3 
were either neutral or expressed support and opposition equally. 
Comments received during the comment period are addressed in the 
following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into a 
number of general issues. These issues and the Service's response to 
each are discussed below.
    Issue 1: Commenters noted that the category-2 list was a critically 
important tool for agencies, researchers, and other partners in land-
use planning. Commenters claimed that elimination of the category-2 
list will prevent land-use planners from easily identifying which 
species are at risk. Respondents also commented that the category-2 
list provided greater certainty to private landowners by notifying them 
of species for which management actions might later be needed.
    Service Response: While a list of species of concern is highly 
useful in conserving plant and wildlife species, it is important to 
recognize that this purpose is far broader than the purposes of the 
Act. The Act is meant to serve as a ``safety net,'' to identify species 
at risk of extinction and focus efforts to recover those species. There 
are numerous Federal laws, such as the National Forest Management Act 
and the Federal Land Management Planning Act, that have broad mandates 
to protect biodiversity. Limiting the application of these laws only to 
species under study for possible listing under the Act would be too 
narrowly focused.
    The Service's former list of category-2 species was far from a 
thorough compilation of species of concern. In fact, the quality of the 
information supporting the category-2 list varied considerably, ranging 
from extremely limited or old data to fairly comprehensive assessments. 
When the Service first started publishing comprehensive lists of 
candidates and potential candidates, no comparable list existed because 
few groups were tracking species of concern. Now a number of groups 
track declining species, including State natural resource agencies and 
Natural Heritage Programs, Federal land-management agencies, the 
Biological Resources Division of the USGS, professional societies, and 
conservation organizations. Given the Service's budgetary constraints 
and ever-increasing workloads, the Service can no longer afford to 
duplicate these efforts and instead must be a partner in contributing 
to these various sources.
    The Service will continue to take a proactive role in species 
conservation. The Service acknowledges that an effective program for 
the conservation of endangered species requires a means of addressing 
species that have not yet been listed but that face immediate, 
identifiable risks. Numerous Service programs are already actively 
working with partners and other knowledgeable individuals to identify 
species of concern, identify research needs, set priorities for 
developing the information, and determine how to accomplish the work 
needed to resolve the species' status. For example, the Service's 
Refuges program works to conserve many declining species, not merely 
those that are listed under the Act. The Migratory Bird Management 
Office identifies ``species of management concern'' to focus attention 
on declining bird species and the Division of Habitat Conservation 
works with private landowners across the nation to conserve species and 
habitats through the ``Partners for Wildlife'' program.
    Federal agencies, consultants, permit applicants, and others 
routinely request lists of species from the Service to use during 
project planning and for other purposes. These requests are often 
associated with activities that could require consultations under 
section 7 of the Act or section 10 permits. The Service will continue 
to be responsive by providing information on candidate, proposed and 
listed species and proposed or designated critical habitat. Where 
possible, the Service will refer the requestor to other appropriate 
sources for information on species of concern or other environmental 
issues that may occur in or near the project area.
    Many agencies, such as the USFS, BLM, and DOD, are working with The 
Nature Conservancy's (TNC) Heritage system to evaluate including all 
``G1-G3'' species and ``T1-T3'' subspecies on their sensitive lists. 
Such efforts should lead to the shared interagency use of a more 
comprehensive list than the Service's former category-2 list.
    The mandates of most Federal land-managing agencies exceed those of 
the Act in protecting biodiversity on their lands. The Act is a tool to 
be used when species decline despite these other mandates. To enhance 
interagency efforts to conserve candidates and other species of 
concern, the USFS, BLM, NPS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the 
Service entered into a MOU that creates a framework for cooperation to 
conserve species and their habitats before they reach the point where 
listing may be necessary. Although the MOU was signed in January 1994, 
when the Service still maintained a category-2 list, compliance with 
the MOU is in no way dependent upon the existence of that list. The 
Service and these agencies remain committed to the concept of 
addressing conservation needs of both candidate species and other 
species of concern.
    Issue 2: The Service should clarify the process it intends to use 
to identify potential candidate species. The commenters also asked for 
clarification on the mechanism the Service will use to determine which 
species need status reviews.
    Service Response: The Service's Endangered Species Program will 
identify candidates for addition to the list of endangered or 
threatened species through a collaborative process among all Federal, 
State, Tribal, and private partners. The Service's Endangered Species 
staff will take an active role with these partners to identify species 
that should be candidates for listing under the Act, identify research 
needs, set priorities for developing the information and determine how 
to accomplish the work needed to resolve the conservation status of 
species.
    Tools available to the Service and its partners for use as a 
foundation for identifying potential candidates include: the Natural 
Heritage Central Database of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the 
International Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation 
Data Centres, the Service's list of Migratory Nongame Birds of 
Management Concern in the United States, species protected by State 
endangered species laws or identified by State agencies as rare or 
vulnerable, species identified by other Federal agencies as vulnerable 
or of management concern such as the USFS and BLM ``sensitive 
species,'' and species identified by professional scientific societies 
as rare or vulnerable (e.g., the American Fisheries Society and 
National Audubon Society/Partners in Flight).
    One of the most comprehensive information sources on rare or 
imperiled species is the Natural Heritage Central Database, developed 
by TNC and the network of State Natural Heritage programs. This 
database ranks the conservation status of species at the

[[Page 64483]]

global, national, and state levels and is available from TNC and the 
State Heritage programs. At present, the Service regards the species 
ranked G1, G2, or G3, and subspecies ranked T1, T2, or T3, in the TNC 
database as a reasonable subset of species and subspecies from which to 
identify those that may be candidates for listing under the Act.
    When all available information has been evaluated, the Service will 
determine whether a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment 
meets the information standards and status criteria for listing and 
should be placed on the candidate list. Recognized subspecies and 
species, as well as distinct population segments, will be recommended 
by the Regional Director to the Service's Director for addition to the 
candidate list. Other species may warrant further review or monitoring 
or not warrant further consideration for listing.
    A status review is the act of reviewing all the available 
information on a species to determine whether it should be considered 
for candidate status. Status reviews are a required component of the 
listing process (section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act). The mechanism for 
identifying species needing status reviews has not significantly 
changed. Service offices will continue to work with State and Federal 
biologists and other knowledgeable individuals to identify the highest 
priority species of concern, identify research needs, set priorities 
for developing the information and determine how to accomplish the work 
needed to resolve species status. The Service will maximize its limited 
resources through a stronger emphasis on a collaborative process 
between the Service and its partners to rank these species by their 
need for study and accomplish these studies cooperatively. State 
agencies, often using funds partially provided under section 6 of the 
Act, conduct status reviews on species of concern annually. The 
Biological Resources Division of the USGS annually requests proposals 
for research on species-at-risk, including status assessments. Because 
the Service is involved in the call for proposals, it can help focus 
such proposals on priority species. The Service believes that this is a 
more effective and efficient way to develop and compile the information 
needed to make biologically and ecologically sound, cost-effective 
decisions.
    Non-candidate species under petition for listing will require 
initiation of a status review whenever the Service makes a finding that 
the petitioners presented substantial scientific data indicating that 
listing may be warranted. If the Service makes a 12-month finding of 
``warranted'' or ``warranted but precluded,'' the species would then be 
considered as a candidate species.
    The Service will publish an annual Notice of Review to provide an 
updated list of candidate species to advise other Federal agencies, 
State and Tribal governments, local governments, industry, and the 
public of those species that are candidates for a listing proposal 
under the Act. Publishing this list annually, rather than biennially as 
before, will ensure that an updated list is always available. This will 
allow resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly 
remove the need to list these species. The annual revision to the 
candidate list will also serve as recycled petition findings until a 
final determination can be made on whether to publish a listing 
proposal for a particular candidate species.
    Issue 3: Commenters stated that the regularly updated Notices of 
Review for candidates have provided a key source of public information 
and a process for public review, input, and refinement. The commenters 
were concerned that without a category-2 list maintained by the 
Service, that publicly available information source will no longer 
exist. They stated that the public will not know where to submit new 
information or research results on former category-2 species.
    Service Response: The Service will continue to accept data and 
other information on all species. The Service's Notice of Review for 
candidate species, published annually, requests information on the 
species currently considered candidates as well as any other species 
that may warrant candidate status. The addresses of the Service's 
regional offices and the states for which they have jurisdiction are 
included in the Notice of Review.
    The process of providing new information or research results to the 
Service has not changed. The Service will continue to receive such 
information for review and consideration. Under a current cooperative 
agreement with TNC, the Service shares information with TNC for 
incorporation into the Natural Heritage Central Database. A number of 
other currently available tools used to identify species of concern in 
order to focus research efforts and for planners to use in their 
decision-making process were listed under Issues 1 and 2.
    Issue 4: Commenters noted that prior to the new candidate policy, 
category-2 species were considered in section 7 consultations and 
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). They stated that excluding those 
species from section 7 consultations and HCPs may result in further 
declines in their status, in some cases to the point of requiring 
listing.
    Service Response: The consideration of category-2 candidates in 
project planning was always discretionary because candidate species 
receive no statutory protection under the Act. The Service recognizes 
that the category-2 candidate list was used as a planning tool; 
however, more complete and more appropriate lists are now available for 
that purpose (as discussed in Issue 1).
    Under both section 7 and 10, the Service will continue to encourage 
the protection of candidate species and species of concern, but the Act 
does not mandate protection for either group. For example, under 
section 10, the Service encourages applicants for incidental take 
permits to consider candidate species and other unlisted species. The 
Service's final HCP Handbook (completed in November 1996) provides that 
unlisted species, such as candidate species, former category-2 species, 
and other species of concern, may be included in HCPs for listed 
species. Furthermore, under section 7 and section 10, the Service will 
continue to aid in the identification of listed, proposed, and 
candidate species that may be in or near a project area. The Service 
will also refer the requestor to other appropriate sources for 
information on species of concern or environmental issues concerns that 
may occur in or near the project area (see Issue 1).
    Issue 5: Commenters claimed that elimination of the category-2 
candidate list is a major Federal action under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
requires preparation of an EIS. Furthermore, because other Federal 
agencies, such as USFS and BLM, have afforded protection to category-2 
species and will no longer be compelled to do so, the commenters 
asserted that an EIS must be prepared to evaluate this and all other 
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with eliminating 
the category-2 list.
    Service Response: The Service does not consider its decision to 
discontinue the maintenance of a list of category-2 candidate species 
in Notices of Review to be a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment for purposes of NEPA. 
(See NEPA section of this notice below for a more detailed discussion.)
    The purpose of the NEPA is to ensure that Federal agency planning 
and decisions consider environmental values. The Service recognizes 
that the

[[Page 64484]]

category-2 list was used as a planning tool by various Federal, State, 
and Tribal agencies but these management entities can and should avail 
themselves of other information sources (as described previously in 
Issue 1) to fill this need. Therefore, the discontinuance of the 
category-2 list is not a significant loss as characterized under NEPA. 
As stated above, other lists of species of concern are more accurate 
and comprehensive than the former category-2 list, and nothing in the 
Act requires Federal agencies to use or consider that specific list.
    Issue 6: Commenters noted that limited financial resources should 
be concentrated on species of greatest concern in a cost-effective 
manner before very costly ``emergency room'' measures, such as captive 
breeding, are required. They were concerned that under the new 
candidate policy, prelisting (candidate conservation) funds will not be 
available for species of concern and that it will also become more 
difficult for Service offices to obtain badly needed section 6 
(Cooperative Endangered Species Grants to States and Territories) 
proposals for such species.
    Service Response: Funding for the endangered species program has 
fallen short of program needs. Therefore, it is important that 
appropriations under the Act be directed primarily toward species for 
which the Service has direct statutory responsibility under the Act. As 
such, expenditure of candidate conservation allocations must be limited 
to activities related to identifying candidate species and conserving 
candidate species. In fiscal year 1997 the Service will direct roughly 
four-fifths of its appropriations (for candidate conservation) to 
candidate conservation agreements and activities and one-fifth to 
status assessments for species of concern that may warrant candidate 
status. Clearly, such a policy achieves the stated goal of focusing 
funding on those species thought to be in gravest peril.
    Section 6 funds allocated to State and Territorial fish and 
wildlife agencies may be used for status assessments for species that 
may warrant candidate status and for conservation and recovery of 
listed, proposed, and candidate species. Candidate status determination 
activities have often occurred through section 6 of the Act. The 
Service will continue to work closely with the States and Territories 
through existing cooperative agreements to determine the assessments 
that should have the highest priority for funding. The Service will 
also continue to work with States and Territories to strengthen or 
develop cooperative agreements for section 6 activities.
    Issue 7: Commenters asserted that the evaluation of former 
category-2 species for possible inclusion on the February 28, 1996, 
Notice of Review was inadequate because Service Regional offices did 
not have enough time to properly evaluate over 4,000 category-2 
species. In addition, commenters stated that the Service violated the 
public notice and comment requirements of the Act and the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by putting its new policy on 
candidate species into effect on February 28, 1996, without requesting 
a public comment period and evaluating public comments.
    Service Response: A Notice of Review is a snapshot of the species 
that the Service considers candidates at the time. Service staff will 
continue to evaluate species of concern and elevate to candidate status 
those that meet the appropriate criteria.
    Service Field and Regional offices were provided sufficient advance 
notice to evaluate candidate lists for the February 28, 1996, Notice of 
Review. The data call for the update of the plant notice was issued in 
January 1995, with a response due in 90 days. An update of all plant 
and animal taxa that the Regions recommended for category-1 status was 
requested on May 17, 1995. In addition, Regional offices were asked on 
August 31, 1995, to provide comments or corrections on a draft notice 
of review.
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on September 17, 1996 
(61 FR 48875), the Service notified the public that the comment period 
for the new candidate policy would remain open until October 17, and 
that public comments would be taken into consideration in developing 
the final decision. All procedural requirements of the Act and the APA 
have been met.
    Issue 8: A commenter requested clarification on a statement in the 
February 28, 1996, notice of review regarding whether species not known 
to exist in the wild could qualify for candidate status.
    Service Response: Species not currently known to exist in the wild, 
captivity, or cultivation cannot be considered for candidate status. 
However, the Service has not, nor did it intend to, remove species from 
consideration for candidate status if they are believed to be extinct 
in the wild but known to be extant in captivity or cultivation. Species 
that are presently known only in captivity or cultivation, but that 
otherwise meet the criteria for listing established by section 4 of the 
Act, may be considered as candidates for possible listing.
    Issue 9: Commenters stated that they do not believe that public 
confusion constitutes a reasonable basis for eliminating the category-2 
list. Various commenters suggested changing the name of the list to 
``watch list,'' ``species of concern,'' or ``species of uncertain 
status,'' rather than eliminating the list altogether.
    Service Response: As discussed also in the Background section and 
Issue 1 above, the Service's decision to discontinue the category-2 
list was based on numerous factors. The quality of the information for 
category-2 species was inconsistent and maintenance of such a list by 
the Endangered Species program is highly duplicative of other efforts. 
A combination of factors, including budgetary priorities, duplicative 
functions, uncertain data quality, and public confusion, forms the 
basis for the decision to discontinue maintenance of a list of 
category-2 species. The Service simply lacks the resources to continue 
such a list at a time of shrinking budgets, especially when mandatory 
section 4 demands are increasing and when non-Federal sources are 
providing a superior product.

Decision

    After review of comments and further consideration, the Service 
discontinues the maintenance of a list of category-2 species. The 
Service's Endangered Species Program will identify candidates for 
addition to the list of endangered or threatened species through a 
collaborative process between the public and private sectors. The 
Service, through all its appropriate programs, will take an active role 
with its partners and other knowledgeable individuals to identify and 
conserve species of concern, identify research needs, set priorities 
for developing the information and determine how to accomplish the work 
needed to resolve the status of species.
    Tools available to the Service and its partners for use as a 
foundation for identifying potential candidates include: the Natural 
Heritage Central Database of TNC and the International Network of 
Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centres, the Service's 
list of Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United 
States, species protected by State endangered species laws or 
identified by State agencies as rare or vulnerable, species identified 
by other Federal agencies as vulnerable or of management concern (e.g., 
the USFS's and BLM's ``sensitive species''), and

[[Page 64485]]

species identified by professional scientific societies as rare or 
vulnerable (e.g., the American Fisheries Society and National Audubon 
Society/Partners in Flight). The most comprehensive single source of 
information on rare or imperilled species is the Natural Heritage 
Central Database, developed by TNC and the network of State Natural 
Heritage programs, which ranks the conservation status of species at 
the global, national, and state levels. This information is available 
from TNC and the State Heritage programs.
    When all available information has been evaluated, the Service will 
determine if a particular species meets the information standards and 
status criteria for recognition as a candidate species, and if so, the 
Regional Director will recommend to the Service's Director that the 
species be added to the candidate list. Other species may warrant 
further review or monitoring or not warrant further consideration for 
candidate status at that time. Non-candidate species petitioned for 
listing will require initiation of a status review when the Service 
makes a 90-day finding of ``substantial information.'' If the Service 
makes a 12-month finding of ``warranted'' or ``warranted but 
precluded,'' the species would then become a candidate. The annual 
update of the candidate notice of review will serve as recycled 
petition findings until such time as a final determination can be made 
on whether a proposed listing rule should be published.

National Environmental Policy Act

    As stated in the September 17, 1996, notice (61 FR 48875), the 
Service does not consider its decision to discontinue the maintenance 
of a list of category-2 species in Notices of Review to be a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment for purposes of the NEPA.
    Further, the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual (DM) 
categorically excludes from consideration under NEPA, ``activities 
which are educational, informational, advisory or consultative to other 
agencies, public or private entities, visitors, individuals, or the 
general public'' (516 DM 2, Appendix 1, item 1.11). Notices of Review 
serve the purpose of informing Federal agencies, state agencies, and 
the general public of species that are candidates for possible addition 
to the lists of endangered or threatened wildlife and plants. They also 
serve as data-gathering tools to assist the Service in developing the 
best available scientific and commercial data on such species. There is 
no statutory or regulatory mandate on how to structure or when to 
publish these notices. Therefore, even if the Service's decision to 
discontinue maintenance of a list of category-2 species in Notices of 
Review were considered an ``action'' for purposes of the NEPA, this 
categorical exclusion would apply. The Service also believes that the 
exceptions to categorical exclusions (516 DM 2, Appendix 2) would not 
be applicable to this decision, especially in light of the absence of 
environmental effects for such action.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: November 27, 1996.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 96-30947 Filed 12-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P