[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 120 (Monday, June 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35564-35567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14497]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0094;FF09M21000-145-FXMB123109EAGLE]
Eagle Permits; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent; notice of public scoping meetings; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, us, or we),
announce five public scoping meetings to inform our decision to prepare
either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, in conjunction with an evaluation of our
eagle management objectives. The decision to initially prepare an EA or
EIS will be, in part, contingent on the complexity of issues identified
during, and following, the scoping phase of the NEPA process. The
scoping meetings will provide an opportunity for input from other
agencies, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and the public on the
scope of the NEPA analysis, the pertinent issues we should address, and
alternatives we should analyze.
DATES: To ensure consideration of written comments, they must be
submitted on or before September 22, 2014. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for the locations and dates of the scoping meetings.
ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the locations of the
scoping meetings. To obtain additional information about the topics
that will be presented at the public scoping meetings, go to http://www.eaglescoping.org. You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-R9-MB-2011-0094, which is the
docket number for this notice, and follow the directions for submitting
comments.
By Hard Copy: Submit by U.S. mail to Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0094; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
Please note in your submission that your comments are in regard to
Eagle Management and Permitting. We request that you send comments by
only one of the methods described above. We will post all information
received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public
Availability of Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliza Savage, at 703-358-2329
(telephone), or eliza_savage@fws.gov (email). Individuals who are
hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service
at 800-877-8337 for TTY assistance. Alternatively, information
presented at the public scoping meetings can be viewed at http://www.eaglescoping.org.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Scoping Meetings
We will hold informal public informational sessions and present
currently identified issues at the following dates and times:
1. July 22, 2014: Sacramento, CA, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Red Lion Hotel,
Woodlake Conference Center, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, 95815.
2. July 24, 2014: Minneapolis, MN, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., DoubleTree
Bloomington--MSP South, 7800 Normandale Blvd., Bloomington, MN
55439.
3. July 29, 2014: Albuquerque, NM, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., DoubleTree
Albuquerque, 201 Marquette Avenue Northwest, Albuquerque NM 87102.
4. July 31, 2014: Denver, CO, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Holiday Inn Denver
Airport, 6900 Tower Rd, Denver, CO 80249.
5. August 7, 2014: Washington, DC, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., South Interior
Building, 1951 Constitution Ave NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Background
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d)
(Eagle Act) prohibits take of bald eagles and golden eagles except
pursuant to Federal regulations. The Eagle Act regulations at title 50,
part 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), define the ``take''
of an eagle to include the following broad range of actions: ``pursue,
shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy,
molest, or disturb'' (Sec. 22.3). The Eagle Act allows the Secretary
of the Interior to authorize certain otherwise prohibited activities
through regulations. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe
regulations permitting the ``taking, possession, and transportation of
[bald eagles or golden eagles] . . . for the scientific or exhibition
purposes of public museums, scientific societies, and zoological parks,
or for the religious purposes of Indian tribes, or . . . for the
protection of wildlife or of agricultural or other interests in any
particular locality,'' provided such permits are ``compatible with the
preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle'' (16 U.S.C. 668a).
On September 11, 2009, we published a final rule that established
two new permit regulations under the Eagle Act (50 FR 46836). One
permit authorizes take (removal, relocation, or destruction) of eagle
nests (50 CFR 22.27). The other permit type authorizes nonpurposeful
take of eagles (50 CFR 22.26). The nonpurposeful eagle take regulations
provide for permits to take bald eagles and golden eagles where the
taking is associated with, but not the purpose of, an activity. The
regulations provide for standard permits, which authorize individual
instances of take that cannot practicably be avoided, and
[[Page 35565]]
programmatic permits, which authorize recurring take that is
unavoidable even after implementation of advanced conservation
practices. We have issued standard permits for commercial and
residential construction, transportation projects, maintenance of
utility lines and dams, and in a variety of other circumstances where
take is expected to occur in a limited timeframe, such as during
clearing and construction.
``Programmatic take'' of eagles is defined at 50 CFR 22.3 as ``take
that is recurring, is not caused solely by indirect effects, and that
occurs over the long term or in a location or locations that cannot be
specifically identified.'' Take that does not reoccur, or that is
caused solely by indirect effects, such as short-term construction,
does not require a programmatic permit. For additional explanation of
programmatic take and programmatic permits, see 74 FR 46841-46843.
We can issue programmatic permits for disturbance as well as take
resulting in mortalities, based on implementation of ``advanced
conservation practices'' developed in coordination with the Service.
``Advanced conservation practices'' are defined at 50 CFR 22.3 as
``scientifically supportable measures that are approved by the Service
and represent the best available techniques to reduce eagle disturbance
and ongoing mortalities to a level where remaining take is
unavoidable.'' Most take authorized under Sec. 22.26 to this point has
been in the form of disturbance; however, permits may authorize lethal
take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, such as
mortalities caused by collisions with rotating wind turbines.
The Eagle Act requires the Service to determine that any take of
eagles it authorizes is compatible with the preservation of bald eagles
or golden eagles. In the preamble to the final regulations for eagle
nonpurposeful take permits, and in the Final Environmental Assessment
of the regulations, we defined that standard to mean ``consistent with
the goal of stable or increasing breeding populations'' (74 FR 46838).
On April 13, 2012, the Service initiated two additional
rulemakings: (1) A proposed rule (``Duration Rule'') to extend the
maximum permit tenure for programmatic eagle nonpurposeful take permit
regulations from 5 to 30 years (77 FR 22267), and (2) an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting input on all aspects of those
eagle nonpurposeful take regulations (77 FR 22278). The ANPR
highlighted three issues on which the Service particularly hoped the
public would comment: Eagle population management objectives,
compensatory mitigation, and programmatic permit issuance criteria.
The Duration Rule was finalized on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73704).
Under the revised regulations, the maximum term for programmatic
permits was extended from 5 to 30 years. This change is intended to
facilitate the responsible development of projects that will be in
operation for many decades and bring them into compliance with
statutory mandates protecting eagles. The longer term permits will
incorporate conditions that provide for adaptive management. Permits
issued for periods longer than 5 years are available only to applicants
who commit to implementing adaptive management measures if monitoring
shows the measures are needed and likely to be effective. The required
adaptive management measures will be negotiated with the permittee at
the outset and specified in the terms and conditions of the permit.
At no more than 5-year intervals from the date a permit is issued,
permittees must compile a report documenting any fatalities and other
pertinent information for the project and submit the report to the
Service. The Service will evaluate each permit to reassess fatality
rates, effectiveness of measures to reduce take, the appropriate level
of compensatory mitigation, and eagle population status. Depending on
the findings of the review, permittees may be required to undertake
additional conservation measures consistent with the permit. The
Service will make mortality information from both the annual and the 5-
year compilation report available to the public.
Management Objectives for Bald and Golden Eagles
The language of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides
flexibility with regard to defining management objectives for bald and
golden eagles. The management objective directs strategic management
and monitoring actions and, ultimately, determines what level of
permitted eagle removal can be allowed.
We are considering modifying current management objectives for
eagles, which were established with the 2009 eagle permit regulations
and Final Environmental Assessment of our regulatory permitting system
under the Eagle Act. Different management objectives could be set for
bald and golden eagles. At least four elements may be considered when
establishing a management objective: (1) The population objective and
relevant timeframe for it to be met; (2) eagle management units (EMUs),
or the geographic scale over which permitted take is regulated to meet
the population objective; (3) whether we also set an upper limit on
take at a finer scale than the EMU to avoid creating population sinks
in local breeding populations; and (4) our level of risk tolerance. The
level of risk tolerance means how much risk the agency is willing to
take when information is uncertain in carrying out management actions
(e.g., setting levels of authorized take). For example, when
information is less certain, a more conservative approach may be
adopted to avoid unintended outcomes. Alternatively, to provide for
more flexibility in permitting, the Service could adopt a more risk-
tolerant approach.
The current management objective, also referred to as the ``Eagle
Act preservation standard,'' is to manage populations consistent with
the goal of maintaining stable or increasing breeding populations over
100 years, which is at least five eagle generations. The scale the
Service uses to evaluate eagle populations is referred to as eagle
management units. EMUs for the golden eagle were set at the Bird
Conservation Region (BCR) level because the only range-wide estimates
available for the golden eagles are BCR-scale population estimates. To
establish management populations for bald eagles, we used natal
populations (eagles within the natal dispersal range of each other) in
our evaluation in order to look at distribution across the landscape.
(Natal dispersal refers to the movement between hatching location and
first breeding or potential breeding location.) Because the populations
delineated by this approach roughly correspond to the Service's
Regional organizational structure, we have been managing bald eagles
based on populations within the eight Service Regions, with some shared
populations. Estimates of bald and golden eagle population size in each
EMU were calculated, and EMU-specific estimates of demographic rates
were used in models to determine rates of authorized take that are
compatible with maintaining stable breeding populations.
Under the current management approach, permitted take of bald
eagles is capped at 5 percent estimated annual productivity for bald
eagles. Because the Service lacked data to show that golden eagle
populations could sustain any additional unmitigated mortality at that
time, we set take thresholds for that species at zero for all regional
populations. This means that any new authorized ``take'' of golden
eagles must be at least equally offset by
[[Page 35566]]
compensatory mitigation (specific conservation actions to replace or
offset project[hyphen]induced losses). For more details and explanation
about the current eagle management approach, see the 2009 Final
Environmental Assessment, Proposal to Permit Take as Provided Under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/BaldAndGoldenEagleManagement.htm.
The Service also developed and applies guidance on upper limits of
take at more local scales to manage cumulative impacts to local
populations. Under the guidance, the Service must assess take rates
both for individual projects and for the cumulative effects of other
human-caused take eagles, at the scale of the local[hyphen]area eagle
population. The local-area population is the population of eagles
within the natal dispersal distance. The Service considers this
distance to represent the geographic area that would provide recruits
to replenish a local population if permitted take caused a decline in
the breeding population of eagles around a permitted project. The
Service identified take rates of between 1 and 5 percent of the total
estimated local[hyphen]area eagle population as significant, with 5
percent being at the upper end of what might be appropriate under the
Eagle Act preservation standard, whether offset by compensatory
mitigation or not.
The Service is considering a range of possible alternatives to the
current management objective. At one end of the spectrum, we could
adopt a qualitative objective such as ``to not meaningfully impair the
bald or golden eagle's continued existence.'' Alternatively, we could
update the current management objective by incorporating newer,
improved information on eagle movements, population size, and natal
dispersal distances to revise the EMUs; set explicit numerical
population objectives in each EMU; and refine the area we consider the
local scale. We could also adopt an explicit level of risk tolerance
relative to how much take to allow based on uncertainty in the
population size estimates.
The scoping process announced today in this notice will inform our
eagle management program and our decision to prepare either an EA or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Service staff who have been
implementing the 2009 eagle permit regulations have identified a number
of priority issues for evaluation during this scoping process,
including the following: Eagle population management objectives;
programmatic permit conditions; compensatory mitigation; evaluation of
the individual and cumulative effects of low-risk (or low-effect)
permits; and criteria for nest removal permits. For more information
about these topics visit http://www.eaglescoping.org. In addition to
these topics, during this scoping process, we invite the public to
provide input on any aspect of our eagle management program.
Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act
The NEPA analysis will evaluate the environmental effects of a
range of alternatives for eagle management. We also intend the NEPA
analysis to:
Evaluate up-to-date information about the status of bald
and golden eagle populations;
Enable the Service to recalculate regional take thresholds
for both species (if population management will continue to incorporate
regional take thresholds);
Analyze the effects of issuing permits to take golden
eagles and bold eagles throughout the U.S.;
Further analyze the effects of longer term nonpurposeful
take permits; and
Rigorously evaluate the effects of low-risk (low-effect)
projects to allow for more efficient permitting at the individual
project level.
The purpose of the public scoping process with regard to NEPA is to
determine relevant issues that could influence the scope of the
environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process
for developing the EA or EIS and related compliance efforts. Factors
currently being considered for analysis in the EA or EIS include, but
are not limited to:
1. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that implementation
of any reasonable alternative could have on bald and golden eagles,
migratory birds, other wildlife species, and their habitats;
2. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of projects that are
likely to take a minimal number of eagles and as such can be classified
as ``low-risk'' or ``low effect'' and for which permitting at the
individual project level could be expedited;
3. Effects to cultural resources;
4. Potentially significant impacts on biological resources, land
use, air quality, water quality, water resources, economics, and other
environmental/historical resources;
5. Strategies for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the impacts
to eagles, migratory birds, wildlife, and other resources listed above;
6. Climate change effects; and
7. Any other environmental issues that should be considered with
regard to potential alternatives for eagle management.
The final range of reasonable alternatives and mitigation to be
analyzed in the draft EA or EIS will be determined in part by the
comments received during the scoping process. The public will also have
a chance to review and comment on the draft EA or EIS when it is
available (a notice of availability will be published in the Federal
Register).
Public Comments
We are requesting information from other interested government
agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry,
nongovernmental organizations, and other interested parties.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
described above under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice.
Written comments will also be accepted at the public meetings, although
these public meetings are primarily intended to provide additional
information and provide a chance for the public to ask questions.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that the 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. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their
entirety.
References
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Final Environmental
Assessment: Proposal to Permit Take as Provided Under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC U.S.A.
Authority
The authorities for this action are the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
[[Page 35567]]
Dated: June 16, 2014.
Jerome Ford,
Assistant Director, Migratory Birds.
[FR Doc. 2014-14497 Filed 6-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P