Migratory Bird Permits; Double-Crested Cormorant Management in the United States, 69225-69230 [2011-28755]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
under Executive Order 13132. It would
not interfere with the States’ abilities to
manage themselves or their funds. No
significant economic impacts are
expected to result from the proposed
change in the definition of ‘‘hybrid’’ at
50 CFR 21.3.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
(Executive Order 13211)
Civil Justice Reform
Compliance With Endangered Species
Act Requirements
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not contain
any new information collections or
recordkeeping requirements for which
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) is required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 432–437(f), and Part 516 of the
U.S. Department of the Interior Manual
(516 DM). The proposed regulation
change would have no environmental
impact.
Socioeconomic. The proposed
regulation change would have no
discernible socioeconomic impacts.
Migratory bird populations. The
proposed regulation change would not
affect native migratory bird populations.
Endangered and threatened species.
The proposed regulation change would
not affect endangered or threatened
species or habitats important to them.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
With Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have
determined that there are no potential
effects on Federally recognized Indian
Tribes from the proposed regulation
change. The proposed regulation change
would not interfere with Tribes’ abilities
to manage themselves or their funds, or
to regulate migratory bird activities on
tribal lands.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
This proposed rule would not affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use.
This action would not be a significant
energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ‘‘The
Secretary [of the Interior] shall review
other programs administered by him
and utilize such programs in
furtherance of the purposes of this
chapter’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It
further states that the Secretary must
‘‘insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out * * * is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
[critical] habitat’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)).
The proposed regulation change would
not affect listed species.
Clarity of this Regulation
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons described in the
preamble, we propose to amend
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69225
PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
1. The authority for part 21 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Public Law 95–
616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public
Law 106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note following
16 U.S.C. 703.
2. Amend § 21.3 by revising the
definition of ‘‘hybrid’’ to read as
follows:
§ 21.3
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Hybrid means offspring of any two
different species listed in § 10.13 of
subchapter B of this chapter, and any
progeny of those birds; or offspring of
any bird of a species listed in § 10.13 of
subchapter B of this chapter and any
bird of a species not listed in § 10.13 of
subchapter B of this chapter, and any
progeny of those birds.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: October 28, 2011.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011–28942 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0033;
91200–1231–9BPP]
RIN 1018–AX82
Migratory Bird Permits; DoubleCrested Cormorant Management in the
United States
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), are
requesting public comments to guide
the preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement or
Environmental Assessment on the
development of revised regulations
governing the management of doublecrested cormorants. Under current
regulations, cormorant damage
management activities are conducted
annually at the local level by
individuals or agencies operating under
USFWS depredation permits, the
existing Aquaculture Depredation
Order, or the existing Public Resource
Depredation Order. The depredation
orders are scheduled to expire on June
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69226
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
30, 2014. This analysis will update the
2003 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS): Double-crested
cormorant management in the United
States (USFWS 2003).
DATES: Electronic comments on this
notice via https://www.regulations.gov
must be submitted by midnight Eastern
Time on February 6, 2012. Comments
submitted by mail must be postmarked
on or before February 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–
0033.
• U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–
MB–2011–0033; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203–
1610.
We will not accept email or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information that you provide. See the
Public Comments section below for
more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Doyle, Wildlife Biologist, Division
of Migratory Bird Management, 703–
358–1799.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We seek
comments to help us determine future
national policy for effective
management of double-crested
cormorant (DCCO, Phalacrocorax
auritus) populations within the United
States. Primary management objectives
surrounding DCCOs are at times in
conflict. They include meeting
conservation obligations under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16
U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and other Federal
laws, while enabling management of
human-wildlife conflicts related to the
expansion of DCCO populations,
particularly in the Great Lakes and
southeastern United States. Developing
a comprehensive national policy
requires consideration of the decision
process at each of the geographic scales
relevant to DCCO management.
Management decisions are made at the
local level (including individual lakes,
breeding colonies, aquaculture facilities,
and roosts), at the State level, regional
or national scales, and across
international borders. Under the current
regulations, control activities are
proposed and conducted annually at the
local level by individuals or agencies
operating under depredation permits
(50 CFR 21.41), the Aquaculture
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Depredation Order (AQDO, 50 CFR
21.47), or the Public Resource
Depredation Order (PRDO, 50 CFR
21.48). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Regional Directors make
annual decisions on whether to allow
these activities. Ultimately, the USFWS
Director will decide, through the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, on a national
management strategy by June 30, 2014,
at which time the existing depredation
orders are scheduled to expire.
The analysis will be prepared in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Wildlife Services
(APHIS–WS). The decision to prepare a
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement or Environmental Assessment
will be based on responses to this notice
and: (1) The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations
of the Council on Environmental
Quality for implementing the
procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
parts 1500–1508), (3) U.S. Department
of the Interior regulations implementing
NEPA (43 CFR part 46), and (4) USFWS
implementing provisions (516 DM 8).
Background
Ecological Context
Double-crested cormorant
populations, especially those breeding
in the Great Lakes States and provinces
and wintering in the southeastern
United States, have increased rapidly
since the mid-1970s, and may have
reached or exceeded carrying capacity
in the Great Lakes. Before that time,
DCCOs were considered a rare breeder
in the Great Lakes, with the first
confirmed nesting documented in 1913
(Wires and Cuthbert 2006). The reasons
for the rapid expansion are unknown,
but likely involved several factors,
including U.S. Federal protection under
the MBTA in 1972, the elimination of
DDT, the expansion of the aquaculture
industry and construction of reservoirs
in the Southeast, and alterations of the
Great Lakes fish communities.
By the mid 1990s, DCCO populations
were perceived to have a negative
impact on the aquaculture industry and
on natural resources at many locations
across North America. Double-crested
cormorants have been implicated in
several human-DCCO conflict issues
including depredation of aquaculture
stocks and local sport and commercial
fisheries, as well as conflicts with other
conservation interests such as damage to
sensitive vegetation and other colonial
nesting bird species (Fielder 2010,
Glahn and Brugger 1995, Hebert et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2005, Rudstam et al. 2004, Somers et al.
2007).
In certain areas, evidence suggests
that DCCOs have contributed to declines
in walleye, yellow perch, and
smallmouth bass, whereas in other areas
no such evidence exists for the decline
of sport fishery stocks (Seefelt and
Gillingham 2006). The implication of
DCCOs as a causative factor in these
declines is confounded, however, by
uncertainties regarding the effect of
other ecosystem changes (e.g., exotic
species introductions, lower nutrient
loading, or decreases in alternate prey)
and how these changes interact with
each other and with DCCO population
dynamics.
Legal, Regulatory, and Management
Context
The USFWS has statutory authority to
manage migratory bird populations in
the United States, under the MBTA (16
U.S.C. 703–712) and the Conventions
with Canada (1916 as amended in 1996),
Mexico (1936 as amended in 1972),
Japan (1972), and Russia (1976). We
have interstate regulatory authority over
cormorants and permit take by
individuals and agencies. All the
Conventions, except the one with
Mexico, specifically mention allowing
the lethal take of birds and eggs to
protect injury to agricultural interests,
persons, or property. The Federal
regulation at 50 CFR 21.1 provides
limited exceptions to protections
afforded by the MBTA, such as the
establishment of depredation orders.
In response to rapidly increasing
wintering populations in the
southeastern United States, breeding
populations of DCCOs in the Great
Lakes region, and concerns about
potential impacts, we adopted two
depredation orders that facilitate the
control of depredating DCCOs. The
Aquaculture Depredation Order (AQDO)
was established in 1998 to assist with
the control of DCCOs at aquaculture
facilities in 13 States. In 2003, we
modified the AQDO and established a
Public Resource Depredation Order
(PRDO) to protect additional public
resources including fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats from DCCO
impacts in 24 States (USFWS 2003).
Both depredation orders were recently
authorized to remain in effect through
June 2014 (USFWS 2009a and USFWS
2009b). Prior to establishment of the
depredation orders, depredation permits
were the primary tool used to resolve
DCCO conflicts. Permits are still used to
resolve conflicts related to human
health and safety and economic losses
to private property in all States,
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
including those operating under the
depredation orders.
Double-crested cormorants in the
United States are managed at selected
sites on the breeding and wintering
grounds and during migration to
alleviate damage and lessen economic,
social, and ecological conflicts.
Management actions are conducted
locally each year and include various
forms of harassment, shooting, nest and
egg destruction, and egg oiling. Under
the PRDO, agencies (State fish and
wildlife agencies, Federally recognized
Tribes, and APHIS–WS) submit annual
written proposals to the USFWS
Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office
(RMBPO) describing the locations and
levels of proposed management actions.
The Regional Director may prevent any
activities that pose a threat to the longterm sustainability of DCCOs or any
other migratory bird species. Often,
decisions are made through interactive
communications between the action
agencies and USFWS. In some cases,
USFWS asks action agencies to clarify
their request or provide additional
rationale for a decision. Inter-agency
coordination also occurs through the
NEPA process when environmental
assessments are developed for DCCO
management within individual States.
No such interaction occurs under the
AQDO. However, aquaculture producers
may operate under the AQDO only in
conjunction with an established
nonlethal harassment program as
certified by APHIS–WS as outlined in
WS Directive 2.330. This certification is
documented on WS Form 37, which
APHIS–WS is required to share with the
USFWS when requested. Aquaculture
producers submit an annual report of
take by location and date, as does
APHIS–WS for take at roosts in the
vicinity of aquaculture facilities.
We retain the authority to revoke
privileges to operate under the PRDO or
AQDO if we believe the depredation
orders have not been adhered to, or if
the long-term sustainability of DCCO
populations is threatened. Since 2004,
total annual take of DCCOs in the
United States has averaged 27 percent of
the amount projected in the 2003 FEIS,
for depredation permits, expanded
AQDO, and PRDO (USFWS 2003).
Preliminary Objectives
We have identified the following
objectives that will be used to evaluate
the alternatives. We identified three
fundamental objectives:
(1) To meet our legal obligations
under the MBTA, Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C.
668), Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other Federal
laws;
(2) To minimize conflicts related to
DCCO impacts and resultant
management actions; and
(3) To minimize the costs of
implementing regulations.
Each alternative will be measured
against the following criteria, or means
objectives, to determine how it
facilitates achieving the fundamental
objectives:
(1) Maintain sustainable DCCO
populations;
(2) Minimize negative impacts to
other migratory birds and threatened
and endangered species;
(3) Maximize the ability to manage
DCCO conflicts;
(4) Maximize the social acceptance of
DCCO management actions;
(5) Minimize the cost of
implementation by action agencies; and
(6) Minimize the cost of USFWS
oversight.
Preliminary Alternatives
We considered several alternative
management actions in the 2003 EIS
(USFWS 2003) including:
(1) No Action;
(2) Non-lethal Management;
(3) Increased Local Damage Control;
(4) Public Resource Depredation
Order;
(5) Regional Population Reduction;
and
(6) Regulated Hunting.
That environmental review resulted
in the selection of the alternative
establishing the PRDO and modifying
the AQDO (USFWS 2003). In addition to
considering the management
alternatives identified above, the
following actions may be included and
addressed in the new NEPA analysis:
69227
(1) Renewing the depredation orders
as currently written (with or without an
expiration date);
(2) Modifying the current depredation
orders;
(3) Allowing the depredation orders to
expire; or
(4) Adopting a different alternative
that may or may not have been
considered in the 2003 EIS.
Public Comments
We seek comments and suggestions
from the public, concerned government
agencies, Tribes, industry, the scientific
community, and other interested parties
regarding the problem, objectives, and
alternatives that we have described and
identified. Explaining your reasons will
help us evaluate your comments. Of
particular interest are answers to the
following questions:
(1) Have we accurately described the
problem? If not, how could it be better
described?
(2) Are there fundamental or means
objectives regarding DCCO management
missing from the list above that we
should consider?
(3) Should the current fundamental or
means objectives be modified? If so,
how?
(4) How would you rank the relative
importance of the identified
fundamental and means objectives?
Please provide your rationale.
(5) Are there any other alternatives
that should be evaluated? If so, please
describe them in sufficient detail so that
they can be evaluated.
(6) Should any of the identified
alternatives be modified? If so, how?
(7) How would you rank the
preliminary list of alternatives? Please
provide your rationale.
As examples of the level of detail
needed to evaluate alternatives, we
present the specifics of two alternatives
that will likely be evaluated: The
current and an alternative version of
both the AQDO and PRDO. In many
cases, the alternative versions attempt to
resolve ambiguities in existing
regulations.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—CURRENT AQUACULTURE DEPREDATION ORDER (AQDO) PROVISIONS, AND AN EXAMPLE OF AN ALTERNATIVE
VERSION OF THE AQDO WITH MODIFIED PROVISIONS
Provision in 50 CFR 21.47
Current
Modified
(b) Area of coverage ..........................................
Commercial freshwater aquaculture facilities
and State and Federal fish hatcheries in 13
States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas).
(1) Should saltwater facilities be included?
(2) Should we modify the coverage by eliminating States that have not used the AQDO
(e.g., Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and consider adding other States?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
69228
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CURRENT AQUACULTURE DEPREDATION ORDER (AQDO) PROVISIONS, AND AN EXAMPLE OF AN ALTERNATIVE
VERSION OF THE AQDO WITH MODIFIED PROVISIONS—Continued
Provision in 50 CFR 21.47
Current
Modified
(c)(2) APHIS–WS ...............................................
Authorized to take DCCOs at roosts in the vicinity of aquaculture facilities.
(c)(3) Agents .......................................................
(d)(1) Certification ...............................................
Agents are authorized ......................................
Producer certified by APHIS–WS ....................
(d)(2) Methods of take ........................................
Firearms including rifles ...................................
Nontoxic shot ...................................................
(d)(6) Carcass disposal ......................................
Donate, bury, incinerate. Not to be sold ..........
(d)(7) Incidental take ..........................................
(d)(8) Endangered Species Act provisions ........
(d)(9) Recordkeeping .........................................
Report to RMBPO immediately .......................
Provisions for wood stork and bald eagle .......
..........................................................................
(f) Expiration .......................................................
June 30, 2014 ..................................................
Other: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
provisions.
None .................................................................
Define vicinity as being within a reasonable
distance of the facility such that DCCOs at
the roost site are likely to be responsible for
depredation.
Should we require training for agents?
(1) Certification renewed on a regular basis.
(2) APHIS–WS required to submit WS Form
37s to Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office (RMBPO).
(1) Define firearms.
(2) Should we change this to nontoxic ammunition?
Should we allow the option to leave birds in
ponds?
Report to RMBPO within 2 days.
Provisions for wood stork.
(1) Clarify calendar year.
(2) Reports due to the RMBPO by January
31st of the following year.
Should we have an expiration date? If so,
when?
Add provisions for bald eagle protection.
TABLE 2—CURRENT PUBLIC RESOURCE DEPREDATION ORDER (PRDO) PROVISIONS, AND AN EXAMPLE OF AN
ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF THE PRDO WITH MODIFIED PROVISIONS
Current
Modified
(b) Area of coverage ..........................................
Lands and freshwaters in 24 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin).
(c)(1) Action agencies ........................................
(c)(1) Public resources .......................................
State fish and wildlife agencies, Federally recognized Tribes, and State Directors of
APHIS–WS.
Fish (including hatchery stock at Federal,
State, and Tribal hatcheries), wildlife,
plants, and their habitats.
(c)(2) Agents .......................................................
Allowed .............................................................
(d)(2) Methods of take ........................................
(d)(4) Landowner permission .............................
Egg oiling, egg and nest destruction, cervical
dislocation, firearms, and CO2 asphyxiation.
Nontoxic shot.
Yes ...................................................................
(d)(6) Carcass disposal ......................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Provision in 50 CFR 21.48
Donate, bury, incinerate. Not to be sold ..........
(d)(7) Incidental take ..........................................
(d)(8) Endangered Species Act provisions ........
Report to RMBPO immediately .......................
Provisions for wood stork, bald eagle, piping
plover, and interior least tern.
(d)(9)(i) Notification .............................................
Required 30-day written notice to RMBPO in
advance of actions taking more than 10
percent of a breeding colony.
(1) Should saltwater systems be included?
(2) Should we modify the coverage by eliminating States that have not used the PRDO
(e.g., Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
West Virginia) and consider adding other
States?
Should we add National Fish Hatcheries, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Parks
operating on their own land?
(1) Define specifically as natural resources
managed and conserved by public agencies
for public benefit.
(2) Should we add resource allocation among
anglers, forage fish, and DCCOs as a public resource?
(3) Should we remove nonnative species from
consideration as a public resource?
(1) Should we require training for agents?
(2) Should we eliminate agents?
(1) Define firearms.
(2) Should we change this to nontoxic ammunition?
Does this need clarification for birds taken off
shore of private property?
(1) Add properly conducted composting.
(2) Should we allow the option to leave carcasses on site when disturbance to co-nesters is an issue?
Report to RMBPO within 2 days.
(1) Provisions for wood stork, piping plover,
and interior least tern.
(2) Should we add provisions for snowy plover where it is threatened?
(1) Change ‘‘breeding colony’’ to ‘‘established
breeding colony’’.
(2) Define breeding colony.
(3) Define established breeding colony.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
69229
TABLE 2—CURRENT PUBLIC RESOURCE DEPREDATION ORDER (PRDO) PROVISIONS, AND AN EXAMPLE OF AN
ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF THE PRDO WITH MODIFIED PROVISIONS—Continued
Provision in 50 CFR 21.48
Current
(d)(9)(ii) Approval ...............................................
(d)(10) Recordkeeping .......................................
(d)(11) Reporting period .....................................
Modified
Regional Director can prevent if long-term
sustainability of DCCOs or any other migratory bird species is threatened.
Number of nests oiled by date and location ....
(f) Expiration .......................................................
(1) October 1 to September 30 reporting period.
(2) Due December 31.
(1) Evaluate effects of management activities
on DCCOs at the control site.
(2) Evaluate, by means of collecting data or
using best available information, effects of
management activities on the public resources being protected and on nontarget
species.
.
June 30, 2014 ..................................................
Other: Justification ..............................................
..........................................................................
Definitions ...........................................................
Timing of control .................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provisions.
State-wide coordination groups ..........................
..........................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(d)(12) Requirements if reducing or eliminating
a local breeding population.
In addition, APHIS–WS and some
State fish and wildlife agencies have
continued to express interest in the
Regional Population Regulation
alternative (formerly referred to as
Regional Population Reduction), though
we considered and rejected that
alternative in the 2003 EIS. To assist us
in further evaluating that alternative, we
are requesting information that will help
us answer the following questions:
(1) Define ‘‘regional.’’
a. What scale?
b. What geographic area?
(2) How will population objectives be
established?
a. Breeding population?
b. Wintering population?
(3) How will birds breeding in Canada
be incorporated?
(4) How will allowable take be
allocated by State?
(5) How will allocated take be
distributed, and how will this affect take
by aquaculture producers?
(6) Where does the funding come from
to implement this alternative?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
(4) Define threshold percent from potential biological removal (PBR) criteria.
(5) Clarify whether part of the threshold percent can be taken within 30 days notice.
In addition, RMBPO acknowledges receipt.
(1) Define location:
(a) During breeding season use colony
location.
(b) During nonbreeding season use next
larger scale (e.g., bay, lake, area, etc.).
(2) Add number of nests destroyed, empty
nests, and otherwise untreated nests, by
date and location.
(1) Report on calendar year.
(2) Due March 15th of the following year.
(1) Define ‘‘local breeding population.’’
(2) Distinguish and define ‘‘established’’ local
breeding population.
(3) Should we require data collection and
eliminate using best available information?
Should we have an expiration date? If so,
when?
Agreement between USFWS Regions on
standards, especially regarding impact to
fish.
Define regional population.
Should we require a moratorium on shooting
adults when nestlings are present?
Add provisions for bald eagle protection.
..........................................................................
Should this be required if there is more than
one action agency in a State?
(7) What are the implications of taking
birds that are not directly causing
damage? Does this alternative just shift
the public pressure to the national
level?
(8) What are the implications if this
alternative does not have the desired
effect and local conflicts continue to
occur?
You may submit your comments and
supporting materials only by one of the
methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. We will not consider comments
sent by email or fax, or written
comments sent to an address other than
the one listed in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request that we withhold this
information from public review, but we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. We will post all hardcopy
comments on https://www.regulations.
gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this notice, will be
available for public inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Literature Cited
Fielder, D.G. 2010. Response of yellow perch
in Les Cheneaux Islands, Lake Huron to
declining numbers of double-crested
cormorants stemming from control
activities. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 36:207–214.
Glahn, J.F. and K.E. Brugger. 1995. The
impact of Double-crested Cormorants on
the Mississippi Delta catfish industry: A
bioenergetics model. Colonial Waterbirds
18:168–175.
Hebert, C.E., J. Duffe, D.V.C. Weseloh, E.M.T.
Senese, and G.D. Haffner. 2005. Unique
island habitats may be threatened by
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
69230
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Double-crested Cormorants. Journal of
Wildlife Management 69:68–76.
Rudstam, L.G., A.J. VanDeValk, C.M. Adams,
J.T.H. Coleman, J.L. Forney, and M.E.
Richmond. 2004. Cormorant predation
and the population dynamics of walleye
and yellow perch in Oneida Lake.
Ecological Applications 14:149–163.
Seefelt, N.E. and J.C. Gillingham. 2006.
Foraging locations of Double-crested
Cormorants in the Beaver Archipelago of
northern Lake Michigan: Potential for
impacts on smallmouth bass. Waterbirds
29:473–480.
Somers, C.M., M.N. Lozer, and J.S. Quinn.
2007. Interactions between Doublecrested Cormorants and Herring Gulls at
a shared breeding site. Waterbirds
30:241–250.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final
Environmental Impact Statement:
Double-crested Cormorant Management
in the United States. U.S. Department of
the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, Virginia. Available at: https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
CurrentBirdIssues/Management/
cormorant/cormorant.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Final
Environmental Assessment: Extended
Management of Double-crested
Cormorants Under 50 CFR 21.47 and
21.48. U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, Arlington,
Virginia. Available at: https://www.fws.
gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/
Management/cormorant/cormorant.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b.
Migratory Bird Permits: Revision of
Expiration Dates for Double-crested
Cormorant Depredation Orders. Federal
Register 74:15394–15398. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
CurrentBirdIssues/Management/
cormorant/cormorant.html.
Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. Historic
Populations of the Double-crested
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus):
Implications for Conservation and
Management in the 21st Century.
Waterbirds 29:9–37.
Dated: October 17, 2011.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011–28755 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 110831547–1639–01]
RIN 0648–BB26
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based
Amendment 2 for the South Atlantic
Region
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to implement
the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based
Amendment 2 (CE–BA 2) to implement
the following South Atlantic fishery
management plan (FMP) amendments:
Amendment 1 to the FMP for Pelagic
Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic
Region (Sargassum FMP); Amendment 7
to the FMP for Coral, Coral reefs, and
Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South
Atlantic Region (Coral FMP); and
Amendment 25 to the FMP for the
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper
FMP), as prepared and submitted by the
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council); as well as
Amendment 21 to the FMP for Coastal
Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources
(CMP FMP) as prepared and submitted
by the South Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Councils.
If implemented, this rule would modify
the fishery management unit for
octocorals in the South Atlantic
exclusive economic zone (EEZ),
establish an annual catch limit (ACL) for
octocorals, modify management in
special management zones (SMZs) off
South Carolina, and modify sea turtle
and small tooth sawfish release gear
specifications in the South Atlantic
region. Through CE–BA 2, NMFS also
proposes to designate new Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) and EFH–Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern (EFH–
HAPCs) for the Snapper-Grouper, Coral
and Sargassum FMPs. The intended
effects of this rule are to specify an ACL
for octocorals, implement management
measures to ensure overfishing does not
occur for these species but that
optimum yield may be achieved, and to
conserve and protect habitat in the
South Atlantic region.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received no later
than 5 p.m., Eastern time, on November
25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2011–0219,
by any one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Karla Gore, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information
(for example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
To submit comments through the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov, click on ‘‘submit a
comment,’’ then enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–
2011–0219’’ in the keyword search and
click on ‘‘search.’’ To view posted
comments during the comment period,
enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2011–0219’’ in
the keyword search and click on
‘‘search.’’ NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
field if you wish to remain anonymous).
You may submit attachments to
electronic comments in Microsoft Word,
Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file
formats only.
Comments received through means
not specified in this rule will not be
accepted.
Electronic copies of CE–BA 2, which
includes an environmental assessment,
Regulatory Impact Review, Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
(IRFA), and a Fishery Impact Statement
may be obtained from the Southeast
Regional Office Web site at https://
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/CEBAAmendment2.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office,
NMFS, telephone: (727) 824–5305,
email: Karla.Gore@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
fisheries for CMP species; coral, coral
reefs, and live/hard bottom habitats;
pelagic Sargassum; and snapper-grouper
off the southern Atlantic states are
managed under their respective FMPs.
The FMPs were prepared by the
Council(s) and are implemented under
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69225-69230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28755]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0033; 91200-1231-9BPP]
RIN 1018-AX82
Migratory Bird Permits; Double-Crested Cormorant Management in
the United States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are requesting
public comments to guide the preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment on the
development of revised regulations governing the management of double-
crested cormorants. Under current regulations, cormorant damage
management activities are conducted annually at the local level by
individuals or agencies operating under USFWS depredation permits, the
existing Aquaculture Depredation Order, or the existing Public Resource
Depredation Order. The depredation orders are scheduled to expire on
June
[[Page 69226]]
30, 2014. This analysis will update the 2003 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS): Double-crested cormorant management in the United
States (USFWS 2003).
DATES: Electronic comments on this notice via https://www.regulations.gov must be submitted by midnight Eastern Time on
February 6, 2012. Comments submitted by mail must be postmarked on or
before February 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R9-
MB-2011-0033.
U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0033; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203-1610.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information that you provide. See the Public Comments section
below for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Doyle, Wildlife Biologist,
Division of Migratory Bird Management, 703-358-1799.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We seek comments to help us determine future
national policy for effective management of double-crested cormorant
(DCCO, Phalacrocorax auritus) populations within the United States.
Primary management objectives surrounding DCCOs are at times in
conflict. They include meeting conservation obligations under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and other
Federal laws, while enabling management of human-wildlife conflicts
related to the expansion of DCCO populations, particularly in the Great
Lakes and southeastern United States. Developing a comprehensive
national policy requires consideration of the decision process at each
of the geographic scales relevant to DCCO management. Management
decisions are made at the local level (including individual lakes,
breeding colonies, aquaculture facilities, and roosts), at the State
level, regional or national scales, and across international borders.
Under the current regulations, control activities are proposed and
conducted annually at the local level by individuals or agencies
operating under depredation permits (50 CFR 21.41), the Aquaculture
Depredation Order (AQDO, 50 CFR 21.47), or the Public Resource
Depredation Order (PRDO, 50 CFR 21.48). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Regional Directors make annual decisions on whether to allow
these activities. Ultimately, the USFWS Director will decide, through
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, on a national
management strategy by June 30, 2014, at which time the existing
depredation orders are scheduled to expire.
The analysis will be prepared in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS). The decision to prepare a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment will be
based on responses to this notice and: (1) The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2)
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing
the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) U.S.
Department of the Interior regulations implementing NEPA (43 CFR part
46), and (4) USFWS implementing provisions (516 DM 8).
Background
Ecological Context
Double-crested cormorant populations, especially those breeding in
the Great Lakes States and provinces and wintering in the southeastern
United States, have increased rapidly since the mid-1970s, and may have
reached or exceeded carrying capacity in the Great Lakes. Before that
time, DCCOs were considered a rare breeder in the Great Lakes, with the
first confirmed nesting documented in 1913 (Wires and Cuthbert 2006).
The reasons for the rapid expansion are unknown, but likely involved
several factors, including U.S. Federal protection under the MBTA in
1972, the elimination of DDT, the expansion of the aquaculture industry
and construction of reservoirs in the Southeast, and alterations of the
Great Lakes fish communities.
By the mid 1990s, DCCO populations were perceived to have a
negative impact on the aquaculture industry and on natural resources at
many locations across North America. Double-crested cormorants have
been implicated in several human-DCCO conflict issues including
depredation of aquaculture stocks and local sport and commercial
fisheries, as well as conflicts with other conservation interests such
as damage to sensitive vegetation and other colonial nesting bird
species (Fielder 2010, Glahn and Brugger 1995, Hebert et al. 2005,
Rudstam et al. 2004, Somers et al. 2007).
In certain areas, evidence suggests that DCCOs have contributed to
declines in walleye, yellow perch, and smallmouth bass, whereas in
other areas no such evidence exists for the decline of sport fishery
stocks (Seefelt and Gillingham 2006). The implication of DCCOs as a
causative factor in these declines is confounded, however, by
uncertainties regarding the effect of other ecosystem changes (e.g.,
exotic species introductions, lower nutrient loading, or decreases in
alternate prey) and how these changes interact with each other and with
DCCO population dynamics.
Legal, Regulatory, and Management Context
The USFWS has statutory authority to manage migratory bird
populations in the United States, under the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712)
and the Conventions with Canada (1916 as amended in 1996), Mexico (1936
as amended in 1972), Japan (1972), and Russia (1976). We have
interstate regulatory authority over cormorants and permit take by
individuals and agencies. All the Conventions, except the one with
Mexico, specifically mention allowing the lethal take of birds and eggs
to protect injury to agricultural interests, persons, or property. The
Federal regulation at 50 CFR 21.1 provides limited exceptions to
protections afforded by the MBTA, such as the establishment of
depredation orders.
In response to rapidly increasing wintering populations in the
southeastern United States, breeding populations of DCCOs in the Great
Lakes region, and concerns about potential impacts, we adopted two
depredation orders that facilitate the control of depredating DCCOs.
The Aquaculture Depredation Order (AQDO) was established in 1998 to
assist with the control of DCCOs at aquaculture facilities in 13
States. In 2003, we modified the AQDO and established a Public Resource
Depredation Order (PRDO) to protect additional public resources
including fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats from DCCO impacts
in 24 States (USFWS 2003). Both depredation orders were recently
authorized to remain in effect through June 2014 (USFWS 2009a and USFWS
2009b). Prior to establishment of the depredation orders, depredation
permits were the primary tool used to resolve DCCO conflicts. Permits
are still used to resolve conflicts related to human health and safety
and economic losses to private property in all States,
[[Page 69227]]
including those operating under the depredation orders.
Double-crested cormorants in the United States are managed at
selected sites on the breeding and wintering grounds and during
migration to alleviate damage and lessen economic, social, and
ecological conflicts. Management actions are conducted locally each
year and include various forms of harassment, shooting, nest and egg
destruction, and egg oiling. Under the PRDO, agencies (State fish and
wildlife agencies, Federally recognized Tribes, and APHIS-WS) submit
annual written proposals to the USFWS Regional Migratory Bird Permit
Office (RMBPO) describing the locations and levels of proposed
management actions. The Regional Director may prevent any activities
that pose a threat to the long-term sustainability of DCCOs or any
other migratory bird species. Often, decisions are made through
interactive communications between the action agencies and USFWS. In
some cases, USFWS asks action agencies to clarify their request or
provide additional rationale for a decision. Inter-agency coordination
also occurs through the NEPA process when environmental assessments are
developed for DCCO management within individual States.
No such interaction occurs under the AQDO. However, aquaculture
producers may operate under the AQDO only in conjunction with an
established nonlethal harassment program as certified by APHIS-WS as
outlined in WS Directive 2.330. This certification is documented on WS
Form 37, which APHIS-WS is required to share with the USFWS when
requested. Aquaculture producers submit an annual report of take by
location and date, as does APHIS-WS for take at roosts in the vicinity
of aquaculture facilities.
We retain the authority to revoke privileges to operate under the
PRDO or AQDO if we believe the depredation orders have not been adhered
to, or if the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations is
threatened. Since 2004, total annual take of DCCOs in the United States
has averaged 27 percent of the amount projected in the 2003 FEIS, for
depredation permits, expanded AQDO, and PRDO (USFWS 2003).
Preliminary Objectives
We have identified the following objectives that will be used to
evaluate the alternatives. We identified three fundamental objectives:
(1) To meet our legal obligations under the MBTA, Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668), Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other Federal laws;
(2) To minimize conflicts related to DCCO impacts and resultant
management actions; and
(3) To minimize the costs of implementing regulations.
Each alternative will be measured against the following criteria,
or means objectives, to determine how it facilitates achieving the
fundamental objectives:
(1) Maintain sustainable DCCO populations;
(2) Minimize negative impacts to other migratory birds and
threatened and endangered species;
(3) Maximize the ability to manage DCCO conflicts;
(4) Maximize the social acceptance of DCCO management actions;
(5) Minimize the cost of implementation by action agencies; and
(6) Minimize the cost of USFWS oversight.
Preliminary Alternatives
We considered several alternative management actions in the 2003
EIS (USFWS 2003) including:
(1) No Action;
(2) Non-lethal Management;
(3) Increased Local Damage Control;
(4) Public Resource Depredation Order;
(5) Regional Population Reduction; and
(6) Regulated Hunting.
That environmental review resulted in the selection of the
alternative establishing the PRDO and modifying the AQDO (USFWS 2003).
In addition to considering the management alternatives identified
above, the following actions may be included and addressed in the new
NEPA analysis:
(1) Renewing the depredation orders as currently written (with or
without an expiration date);
(2) Modifying the current depredation orders;
(3) Allowing the depredation orders to expire; or
(4) Adopting a different alternative that may or may not have been
considered in the 2003 EIS.
Public Comments
We seek comments and suggestions from the public, concerned
government agencies, Tribes, industry, the scientific community, and
other interested parties regarding the problem, objectives, and
alternatives that we have described and identified. Explaining your
reasons will help us evaluate your comments. Of particular interest are
answers to the following questions:
(1) Have we accurately described the problem? If not, how could it
be better described?
(2) Are there fundamental or means objectives regarding DCCO
management missing from the list above that we should consider?
(3) Should the current fundamental or means objectives be modified?
If so, how?
(4) How would you rank the relative importance of the identified
fundamental and means objectives? Please provide your rationale.
(5) Are there any other alternatives that should be evaluated? If
so, please describe them in sufficient detail so that they can be
evaluated.
(6) Should any of the identified alternatives be modified? If so,
how?
(7) How would you rank the preliminary list of alternatives? Please
provide your rationale.
As examples of the level of detail needed to evaluate alternatives,
we present the specifics of two alternatives that will likely be
evaluated: The current and an alternative version of both the AQDO and
PRDO. In many cases, the alternative versions attempt to resolve
ambiguities in existing regulations.
Table 1--Current Aquaculture Depredation Order (AQDO) Provisions, and an
Example of an Alternative Version of the AQDO With Modified Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision in 50 CFR 21.47 Current Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Area of coverage........ Commercial (1) Should saltwater
freshwater facilities be
aquaculture included?
facilities and (2) Should we modify
State and Federal the coverage by
fish hatcheries in eliminating States
13 States (Alabama, that have not used
Arkansas, Florida, the AQDO (e.g.,
Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South
Louisiana, Carolina, and
Minnesota, Tennessee) and
Mississippi, North consider adding
Carolina, Oklahoma, other States?
South Carolina,
Tennessee, and
Texas).
[[Page 69228]]
(c)(2) APHIS-WS............. Authorized to take Define vicinity as
DCCOs at roosts in being within a
the vicinity of reasonable distance
aquaculture of the facility
facilities. such that DCCOs at
the roost site are
likely to be
responsible for
depredation.
(c)(3) Agents............... Agents are Should we require
authorized. training for
agents?
(d)(1) Certification........ Producer certified (1) Certification
by APHIS-WS. renewed on a
regular basis.
(2) APHIS-WS
required to submit
WS Form 37s to
Regional Migratory
Bird Permit Office
(RMBPO).
(d)(2) Methods of take...... Firearms including (1) Define firearms.
rifles.
Nontoxic shot....... (2) Should we change
this to nontoxic
ammunition?
(d)(6) Carcass disposal..... Donate, bury, Should we allow the
incinerate. Not to option to leave
be sold. birds in ponds?
(d)(7) Incidental take...... Report to RMBPO Report to RMBPO
immediately. within 2 days.
(d)(8) Endangered Species Provisions for wood Provisions for wood
Act provisions. stork and bald stork.
eagle.
(d)(9) Recordkeeping........ .................... (1) Clarify calendar
year.
(2) Reports due to
the RMBPO by
January 31st of the
following year.
(f) Expiration.............. June 30, 2014....... Should we have an
expiration date? If
so, when?
Other: Bald and Golden Eagle None................ Add provisions for
Protection Act provisions. bald eagle
protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Current Public Resource Depredation Order (PRDO) Provisions,
and an Example of an Alternative Version of the PRDO With Modified
Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision in 50 CFR 21.48 Current Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Area of coverage........ Lands and (1) Should saltwater
freshwaters in 24 systems be
States (Alabama, included?
Arkansas, Florida, (2) Should we modify
Georgia, Illinois, the coverage by
Indiana, Iowa, eliminating States
Kansas, Kentucky, that have not used
Louisiana, the PRDO (e.g.,
Michigan, Florida, Illinois,
Minnesota, Indiana, Kansas,
Mississippi, Kentucky,
Missouri, New York, Louisiana,
North Carolina, Missouri, North
Ohio, Oklahoma, Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Tennessee, and West
Vermont, West Virginia) and
Virginia, consider adding
Wisconsin). other States?
(c)(1) Action agencies...... State fish and Should we add
wildlife agencies, National Fish
Federally Hatcheries,
recognized Tribes, National Wildlife
and State Directors Refuges, and
of APHIS-WS. National Parks
operating on their
own land?
(c)(1) Public resources..... Fish (including (1) Define
hatchery stock at specifically as
Federal, State, and natural resources
Tribal hatcheries), managed and
wildlife, plants, conserved by public
and their habitats. agencies for public
benefit.
(2) Should we add
resource allocation
among anglers,
forage fish, and
DCCOs as a public
resource?
(3) Should we remove
nonnative species
from consideration
as a public
resource?
(c)(2) Agents............... Allowed............. (1) Should we
require training
for agents?
(2) Should we
eliminate agents?
(d)(2) Methods of take...... Egg oiling, egg and (1) Define firearms.
nest destruction, (2) Should we change
cervical this to nontoxic
dislocation, ammunition?
firearms, and CO2
asphyxiation.
Nontoxic shot.
(d)(4) Landowner permission. Yes................. Does this need
clarification for
birds taken off
shore of private
property?
(d)(6) Carcass disposal..... Donate, bury, (1) Add properly
incinerate. Not to conducted
be sold. composting.
(2) Should we allow
the option to leave
carcasses on site
when disturbance to
co-nesters is an
issue?
(d)(7) Incidental take...... Report to RMBPO Report to RMBPO
immediately. within 2 days.
(d)(8) Endangered Species Provisions for wood (1) Provisions for
Act provisions. stork, bald eagle, wood stork, piping
piping plover, and plover, and
interior least tern. interior least
tern.
(2) Should we add
provisions for
snowy plover where
it is threatened?
(d)(9)(i) Notification...... Required 30-day (1) Change
written notice to ``breeding colony''
RMBPO in advance of to ``established
actions taking more breeding colony''.
than 10 percent of (2) Define breeding
a breeding colony. colony.
(3) Define
established
breeding colony.
[[Page 69229]]
(4) Define threshold
percent from
potential
biological removal
(PBR) criteria.
(5) Clarify whether
part of the
threshold percent
can be taken within
30 days notice.
(d)(9)(ii) Approval......... Regional Director In addition, RMBPO
can prevent if long- acknowledges
term sustainability receipt.
of DCCOs or any
other migratory
bird species is
threatened.
(d)(10) Recordkeeping....... Number of nests (1) Define location:
oiled by date and
location.
(a) During breeding
season use colony
location.
(b) During
nonbreeding season
use next larger
scale (e.g., bay,
lake, area, etc.).
(2) Add number of
nests destroyed,
empty nests, and
otherwise untreated
nests, by date and
location.
(d)(11) Reporting period.... (1) October 1 to (1) Report on
September 30 calendar year.
reporting period. (2) Due March 15th
of the following
year.
(2) Due December 31.
(d)(12) Requirements if (1) Evaluate effects (1) Define ``local
reducing or eliminating a of management breeding
local breeding population. activities on DCCOs population.''
at the control site. (2) Distinguish and
(2) Evaluate, by define
means of collecting ``established''
data or using best local breeding
available population.
information, (3) Should we
effects of require data
management collection and
activities on the eliminate using
public resources best available
being protected and information?
on nontarget
species.
....................
(f) Expiration.............. June 30, 2014....... Should we have an
expiration date? If
so, when?
Other: Justification........ .................... Agreement between
USFWS Regions on
standards,
especially
regarding impact to
fish.
Definitions................. .................... Define regional
population.
Timing of control........... .................... Should we require a
moratorium on
shooting adults
when nestlings are
present?
Bald and Golden Eagle .................... Add provisions for
Protection Act provisions. bald eagle
protection.
State-wide coordination .................... Should this be
groups. required if there
is more than one
action agency in a
State?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, APHIS-WS and some State fish and wildlife agencies
have continued to express interest in the Regional Population
Regulation alternative (formerly referred to as Regional Population
Reduction), though we considered and rejected that alternative in the
2003 EIS. To assist us in further evaluating that alternative, we are
requesting information that will help us answer the following
questions:
(1) Define ``regional.''
a. What scale?
b. What geographic area?
(2) How will population objectives be established?
a. Breeding population?
b. Wintering population?
(3) How will birds breeding in Canada be incorporated?
(4) How will allowable take be allocated by State?
(5) How will allocated take be distributed, and how will this
affect take by aquaculture producers?
(6) Where does the funding come from to implement this alternative?
(7) What are the implications of taking birds that are not directly
causing damage? Does this alternative just shift the public pressure to
the national level?
(8) What are the implications if this alternative does not have the
desired effect and local conflicts continue to occur?
You may submit your comments and supporting materials only by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider
comments sent by email or fax, or written comments sent to an address
other than the one listed in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request that we withhold this
information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this notice, will be available for
public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Literature Cited
Fielder, D.G. 2010. Response of yellow perch in Les Cheneaux
Islands, Lake Huron to declining numbers of double-crested
cormorants stemming from control activities. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 36:207-214.
Glahn, J.F. and K.E. Brugger. 1995. The impact of Double-crested
Cormorants on the Mississippi Delta catfish industry: A
bioenergetics model. Colonial Waterbirds 18:168-175.
Hebert, C.E., J. Duffe, D.V.C. Weseloh, E.M.T. Senese, and G.D.
Haffner. 2005. Unique island habitats may be threatened by
[[Page 69230]]
Double-crested Cormorants. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:68-76.
Rudstam, L.G., A.J. VanDeValk, C.M. Adams, J.T.H. Coleman, J.L.
Forney, and M.E. Richmond. 2004. Cormorant predation and the
population dynamics of walleye and yellow perch in Oneida Lake.
Ecological Applications 14:149-163.
Seefelt, N.E. and J.C. Gillingham. 2006. Foraging locations of
Double-crested Cormorants in the Beaver Archipelago of northern Lake
Michigan: Potential for impacts on smallmouth bass. Waterbirds
29:473-480.
Somers, C.M., M.N. Lozer, and J.S. Quinn. 2007. Interactions between
Double-crested Cormorants and Herring Gulls at a shared breeding
site. Waterbirds 30:241-250.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final Environmental Impact
Statement: Double-crested Cormorant Management in the United States.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Division
of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/cormorant/cormorant.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Final Environmental
Assessment: Extended Management of Double-crested Cormorants Under
50 CFR 21.47 and 21.48. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington,
Virginia. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/cormorant/cormorant.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Migratory Bird Permits:
Revision of Expiration Dates for Double-crested Cormorant
Depredation Orders. Federal Register 74:15394-15398. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/cormorant/cormorant.html.
Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. Historic Populations of the
Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus): Implications for
Conservation and Management in the 21st Century. Waterbirds 29:9-37.
Dated: October 17, 2011.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-28755 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
