Published Eagle Fatality Collision Risk Model

28858

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices

information collection. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, this notice seeks comments
concerning the Integrated Public Alert
and Warning Systems (IPAWS)
Memorandum of Agreement
Applications.
Comments must be submitted on
or before August 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate
submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to
submit comments:
(1) Online. Submit comments at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA–2018–0024. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to
Docket Manager, Office of Chief
Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW,
8NE, Washington, DC 20472–3100.
All submissions received must
include the agency name and Docket ID.
Regardless of the method used for
submitting comments or material, all
submissions will be posted, without
change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov,
and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it
public. You may wish to read the
Privacy Act notice that is available via
the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.
DATES:

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wade Witmer, Deputy for the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS) Program, FEMA, Continuity
Communications Division, (202) 646–
2523, [email protected]. You
may contact the Information
Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public
Law 114–143, The IPAWS
Modernization Act of 2015, and
Presidential Executive Order 13407
establishes the policy for an effective,
reliable, integrated, flexible, and
comprehensive system to alert and warn
the American people in situations of
war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or
other hazards to public safety and
wellbeing. The Integrated Public Alert
and Warning System (IPAWS) is the
Department of Homeland Security’s
(DHS) response to the Executive Order.
The Stafford Act (U.S.C. Title 42,
Chapter 68, Subchapter II) requires that
FEMA make IPAWS available to
Federal, State, and local agencies for the
purpose of providing warning to
governmental authorities and the
civilian population in areas endangered

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:22 Jun 20, 2018

Jkt 244001

by disasters. The information collected
is used by FEMA to create a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that
regulates the management, operations,
and security of the information
technology system connection between
a Federal, State, territorial, tribal or
local alerting authority and IPAWS–
OPEN (Open Platform for Emergency
Notifications).
Collection of Information
Title: Integrated Public Alert and
Warning Systems (IPAWS)
Memorandum of Agreement
Applications.
Type of Information Collection:
Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information
collection.
OMB Number: 1660–0140.
FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 007–0–25,
IPAWS Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) Application; FEMA Form 007–
0–26, Memorandum of Agreement
Application for Tribal Governments.
Abstract: A Federal, State, territorial,
tribal, or local alerting authority that
applies for authorization to use IPAWS
is designated as a Collaborative
Operating Group or ‘‘COG’’ by the
IPAWS Program Management Office
(PMO). Access to IPAWS is free;
however, to send a message using
IPAWS, an organization must procure
its own IPAWS compatible software. To
become a COG, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) governing system
security must be executed between the
sponsoring organization and FEMA.
Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal
Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
160.
Estimated Number of Responses: 160.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 160 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent
Cost: $8,150.4.
Estimated Respondents’ Operation
and Maintenance Costs: $0.
Estimated Respondents’ Capital and
Start-Up Costs: $0.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to the
Federal Government: $115,890.42.
Comments
Comments may be submitted as
indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a)
evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

(c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) 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
responses.
Rachel Frier,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office
of the Chief Administrative Officer, Mission
Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018–13290 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–AB–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–MB–2017–0092; 91200–
FF09M20300–189–FXMB123109EAGLE]

Updated Collision Risk Model Priors
for Estimating Eagle Fatalities at Wind
Energy Facilities
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and
request for comments.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) uses a collision risk
model (CRM) to predict the number of
golden and bald eagles that may be
killed at new wind facilities. The model
incorporates existing information on
eagle exposure and collision probability
in the form of prior distributions
(priors). The Service has undertaken an
analysis to update the priors using all
available data that meet specific criteria
for both species of eagle. This notice
announces the availability of a summary
report of that analysis, which generates
new exposure and collision priors for
both species of eagle. We are soliciting
public comments on the summary
report, which will be considered by the
Service before using the new priors in
the CRM.
DATES: To ensure consideration of
written comments, they must be
submitted on or before August 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments by one of the following
methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS–
HQ–MB–2017–xxxx, which is the
docket number for this notice, and
follow the directions for submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM

21JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or
hand-delivery to Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2017–
0092; Division of Policy, Performance,
and Management Programs; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Request
for Information below for more
information).
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:

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

Eliza Savage, at 703–358–2329
(telephone), or [email protected]
(email). Individuals who are hearing
impaired or speech impaired may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–
8337 for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) uses a collision risk model
(CRM) to predict the number of golden
and bald eagles that may be killed at
new wind facilities (USFWS 2013; New
et al. 2015). The CRM incorporates
existing knowledge of eagle use around
a proposed wind facility (exposure) and
the probability of an eagle colliding
with an operating turbine (collision
probability). Essentially, the CRM uses
three estimates to generate an annual
eagle fatality estimate in the form of a
probability distribution. These estimates
are: (1) A project-specific estimate of
eagle exposure; (2) a project-specific
estimate of the amount of hazardous
area and time that will be created by the
project; and (3) an estimate of the
probability that an exposed eagle that
enters the hazardous area will be struck
and injured or killed by a turbine blade.
The median (50th quantile) fatality rate
of the CRM-generated probability
distribution is the point on the
distribution at which there is an equal
risk of under- and overestimating eagle
fatalities. The Service uses the 80th
quantile of the CRM fatality probability
distribution to determine the take limit
for incidental take permits, which
lowers the risk of underestimating eagle
take to a 20% chance.
In our 2016 revision to the eagle take
regulations (81 FR 91494, Dec. 16,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:22 Jun 20, 2018

Jkt 244001

2016), the Service reaffirmed both our
intent to use the CRM to obtain initial
estimates of eagle fatalities at new wind
facilities, and that we would undertake
a review of the background data used in
the model to generate the estimates. The
model is constructed using a Bayesian
framework, and as such incorporates
existing information on eagle exposure
and collision probability in the form of
prior distributions (priors). The priors
are formally combined with site-specific
data on exposure and the amount of
hazardous area and operational time for
a site to estimate the expected number
of annual eagle collision fatalities.
The current priors for the CRM use
data for golden eagles from nine sites
with complete survey effort information
for exposure, and four sites for collision
probability (New et al. 2015). There
were no data available to estimate
parameters specific to bald eagles when
we initially developed the model, so the
golden eagle priors were used as
surrogates for bald eagles. Public
comments on the 2016 eagle rule
revision were critical of the Service’s
CRM because the priors for golden
eagles had not been updated to include
new information, and because priors
have not been developed for bald eagles
even though data on exposure and
collision probability are now available
for this species. In response to these
comments, the Service committed to
updating the golden eagle priors, and to
explore whether sufficient data exist to
develop separate bald eagle exposure
and collision priors.
The Service has undertaken that
analysis using all available data that
meet specific criteria for both species of
eagle. This notice announces the
availability of a summary report of that
analysis, which includes new exposure
and collision priors for both species of
eagle. The report may be downloaded
from the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Search for
FWS–HQ–MB–2017–0092. You can also
find the report on the Service’s website
at: https://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/managed-species/eaglemanagement.php. The Service intends
to incorporate these updated priors into
our CRM after considering comments
received in response to this notice; that
update will be in the form of a revised
version of Appendix D of the Eagle
Conservation Plan Guidance (USFWS
2013).
For this update, the Service reviewed
data sets for 419 wind energy facilities,
but many did not meet our criteria for
incorporation into the priors (see the
summary report for criteria used to filter
projects). Data from 71 new and the nine
original wind projects were used for the

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

28859

updated exposure priors. Of these 80
sites, 61 provided data for golden eagles
and 59 for bald eagles. For the collision
priors, 18 new sites in addition to the
original four sites were identified as
having data sufficient to include in the
updated collision priors. We used data
from 21 sites for golden eagles and 14
for bald eagles in the collision-prior
update. The updated exposure prior is
lower for both species than the prior
currently in use. The updated collision
prior is slightly lower than the current
prior for golden eagles and higher for
bald eagles.
Many of the commenters on the 2016
eagle rule revision encouraged the
Service to develop a specific bald eagle
prior because they believe collision risk
for bald eagles is lower than for golden
eagles. The data available to the Service
suggest that there is more variation in
both exposure and collision risk for bald
eagles, and that uncertainty results in a
higher expected collision probability for
this species. The Service does not regard
this outcome as counter-intuitive,
because the range in abundance of bald
eagles across the landscape is far greater
than for golden eagles, and where bald
eagles are abundant, they engage in
social behaviors and intra-specific
interactions that may make them more
vulnerable than golden eagles to
collisions (81 FR 91552). Thus, the
implication that bald eagles are at high
risk at a few wind facilities, while their
risk is much lower at many others, is
tenable. The Service acknowledges,
however, that the bald eagle collision
prior is based on data from relatively
few sites that do not span the range of
bald eagle density conditions that exist
across the country, and therefore may
not be representative of all locations.
Given this, the Service is considering
three alternatives for how to incorporate
species-specific priors for bald eagles
into the CRM and fatality modeling
process:
(1) Use the updated species-specific
priors, and use the 80th quantile of the
CRM fatality estimates as the initial
permitted take number for permits, as is
the current practice.
(2) Use the updated species-specific
priors, but because the status of bald
eagles is secure, adopt a risk-tolerant
policy for bald eagles and select a more
liberal quantile on the CRM fatality
distribution as the initial permitted take
number for this species.
(3) Given the limitations in data
available to inform the bald eagle priors,
initiate an expert elicitation process to
further refine the bald eagle priors.
Under any of these scenarios, the
Service would use data submitted under

E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM

21JNN1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

28860

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices

permits to make updates to the priors in
the future.
Alternative 1 would mean that for a
similar level of eagle use observed at a
project site, the Service would use
higher fatality estimates for bald eagles
than for golden eagles. Alternative 2
would be a decision by the Service to
be more ‘risk-tolerant’ for bald eagles.
This would mean that initial fatality
predictions would be lower, however it
would also likely mean that more
permits would have to be amended to
increase the permitted take over time
(i.e., the Service would be
underestimating take more often).
Alternative 3 would be a decision by the
Service that more information is needed
to understand the potential variability of
exposure and collision probability for
bald eagles. Such a process could result
in either higher or lower (or more
variable) priors. With this notice, we are
soliciting input from the public on these
three alternatives, and we will take
those comments into consideration in
making a final decision.
Many commenters on the draft 2016
rule urged the Service to adopt changes
to the golden eagle CRM priors based on
a recent peer-reviewed scientific article
by Bay et al. (2016). Service staff
coordinated with authors of the Bay et
al. paper in development of this update,
and all data used in the Bay et al. paper
that were available to us and that met
our criteria were incorporated. The
Service decided not to incorporate the
results of the Bay et al. paper directly,
however, for two main reasons. First,
the Service could access and utilize
more data than were used in the Bay et
al. paper, and so our updated priors
incorporate more recent information
from a wider range of projects and sites
than were used by Bay et al. Second, the
Bay et al. analysis used a fatality
estimator that did not account for the
possibility of undetected eagle deaths
during mortality monitoring when no
dead eagles were found. The Service
uses models in our update that account
for imperfect detection when dead
eagles are not encountered during
monitoring, because there is ample
evidence that finding no dead eagles
does not mean there were no eagle
fatalities. Thus, although the Service’s
updated collision probability for golden
eagles is higher than that reported by
Bay et al., our approach is more accurate
and consistent with our risk-averse
policy with respect to estimating and
managing eagle take.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become
part of the public record associated with
this action. Before including your

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:22 Jun 20, 2018

Jkt 244001

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.
Literature Cited
Bay, K., Nasman, K., Erickson, W., Taylor,
K., Kosciuch, K. (2016). Predicting Eagle
Fatalities at Wind Facilities, Journal of
Wildlife Management 80:1000–1010.
New, L., Bjerre, E., Millsap, B., Otto, M.C.,
Runge, M.C. (2015). A Collision Risk Model
to Predict Avian Fatalities at Wind Facilities:
An Example Using Golden Eagles, Aquila
chrysaetos, PLOS ONE,
journal.pone.0130978.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Eagle
conservation plan guidance. Module 1–landbased wind energy. Version 2. Division of
Migratory Bird Management, Washington,
DC. URL http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
pdf/management/eagleconservationpla
nguidance.pdf.
Dated: April 6, 2018.
Susan Combs,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising
the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2018–13358 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey
[GX18LC00BM3FD00; OMB Control Number
1028–0079]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; North American Breeding
Bird Survey
U.S. Geological Survey,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is
proposing to renew an information
collection (IC).
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before August
20, 2018.
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Send your comments on the
information collection request (ICR) by
mail to the U.S. Geological Survey,
Information Collections Clearance
Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS
159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to
[email protected]. Please
reference OMB Control Number 1028–
0079 in the subject line of your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Keith Pardieck by
email at [email protected] or by
telephone at 301–497–5843.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the
U.S. Geological Survey, in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, provide the general public and
other Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on 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.
We are soliciting comments on the
proposed ICR that is described below.
We are especially interested in public
comment addressing the following
issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to
the proper functions of the USGS; (2)
will this information be processed and
used in a timely manner; (3) is the
estimate of burden accurate; (4) how
might the USGS enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (5) how might the
USGS minimize the burden of this
collection on the respondents, including
through the use of information
technology.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or
summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this ICR. 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 may 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: Respondents supply the
U.S. Geological Survey with avian
population data for more than 600 North
American bird species. The survey data,
resulting population trend estimates,
and relative abundance estimates will
ADDRESSES:

E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM

21JNN1