Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Notices 35821 

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. 

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/ 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madonna L. Baucum, Service 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 

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 

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; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Notices 35823 

(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 

Completion 

time per 

response 

(hours) 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Tier 1 (Desktop Analysis) 630 1 630 

Reporting ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 52.5 33,075 

Recordkeeping .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 1 630 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
35824 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Notices 

Requirement 

Annual 

number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

each 

Total annual 

responses 

Completion 

time per 

response 

(hours) 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Tier 2 (Site characterization) 

Reporting ...................................................................... 473 1 473 210 99,330 

Recordkeeping .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 3 1,419 

Tier 3 (Pre-construction studies) 

Reporting ...................................................................... 90 1 90 2,695 242,550 

Recordkeeping .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 5 450 

Tier 4 (Post-construction fatality monitoring and habitat 

studies) 

Reporting ...................................................................... 90 1 90 3,600 324,000 

Recordkeeping .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 5 450 

Tier 5 (Other post-construction studies) 

Reporting ...................................................................... 5 1 5 2,100 10,500 

Recordkeeping .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 5 25 

Totals ..................................................................... 1,288 ........................ 1,288 ........................ 712,429 

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 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 

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; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES