Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, 78465-78468 [2014-30481]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
78465
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
provide in any voluntary submission
you make. For additional information
please read the Privacy Act notice that
is available via the link in the footer of
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you need a copy of the information
collection instrument with instructions,
or additional information, please visit
the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
https://www.regulations.gov. We may
also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of
Policy and Strategy, Regulatory
Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins,
Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529–2140,
Telephone number 202–272–8377.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
Note: The address listed in this notice
should only be used to submit comments
concerning this information collection.
Please do not submit requests for individual
case status inquiries to this address. If you
are seeking information about the status of
your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case
Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/
Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National
Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
should address one or more of the
following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) 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;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Activity
(reporting and recordkeeping)
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection
Request: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Application for Waiver of Grounds of
Inadmissibility.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–881; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
Households. The information collected
on this form is used by U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) to
determine whether the applicant is
eligible for a waiver of excludability
under section 212 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: 20,625 responses (paperformat) at 1.75 hours per response; 100
responses (biometrics) at 1.17 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: 36,211 burden hours.
Dated: December 22, 2014.
Laura Dawkins,
Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division,
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014–30508 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
21:42 Dec 29, 2014
Jkt 235001
You must submit comments on
or before January 29, 2015.
DATES:
Send your comments and
suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov (email).
Please provide a copy of your comments
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803 (mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0148’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
ADDRESSES:
To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_
grey@fws.gov (email) or 703–358–2482
(telephone). You may review the ICR
online at https://www.reginfo.gov. Follow
the instructions to review Department of
the Interior collections under review by
OMB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fish and Wildlife Service
Information Collection Request
[FWS–HQ–ES–2014–N257; FXHC1122
0900000–145–FF09E33000]
OMB Control Number: 1018–0148.
Title: Land-Based Wind Energy
Guidelines.
Service Form Number: None.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents:
Developers and operators of wind
energy facilities.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Land-Based Wind
Energy Guidelines
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) have sent an Information
SUMMARY:
Number of
respondents
Tier 1 (Desktop Analysis) ........................
Tier 2 (Site Characterization) ...................
Tier 3 (Pre-construction studies) .............
Tier 4 (Post-construction fatality monitoring and habitat studies) ....................
Tier 5 (Other post-construction studies) ..
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for
review and approval. We summarize the
ICR below and describe the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost. This information collection is
scheduled to expire on December 31,
2014. 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. However, under OMB
regulations, we may continue to
conduct or sponsor this information
collection while it is pending at OMB.
Completion
time per
response
(hours)
Number of
responses
Total annual
burden hours
Nonhour
burden cost
per response
Total annual
nonhour
burden cost
40
35
30
81
369
14,695
3,240
12,915
440,850
$825
3,750
149,288
$33,000
131,250
4,478,640
45
10
PO 00000
40
35
30
45
10
4,023
6,939
181,035
69,390
40,875
70,500
1,839,375
705,000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
78466
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
Activity
(reporting and recordkeeping)
Number of
respondents
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Totals ................................................
160
Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden
Cost: $7,187,265. Costs will depend on
the size and complexity of issues
associated with each project. These
expenses may include, but are not
limited to: Travel expenses for site
visits, studies conducted, and meetings
with the Service and other Federal and
State agencies; training in survey
methodologies; data management;
special transportation, such as allterrain vehicle or helicopter; equipment
needed for acoustic, telemetry, or radar
monitoring, and carcass storage. The
Tier 3 estimate is very high because it
includes every type of pre-construction
monitoring study that could potentially
be conducted. It is more likely that a
selection of these studies will be
performed at any given site, depending
on the species of concern identified and
other site-specific conditions.
Abstract: As wind energy production
increased, both developers and wildlife
agencies recognized the need for a
system to evaluate and address the
potential negative impacts of wind
energy projects on species of concern.
We issued voluntary Land-Based Wind
Energy Guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/
windenergy) in March 2012 to provide
a structured, scientific process for
addressing wildlife conservation
concerns at all stages of land-based
wind energy development. The
Guidelines also promote effective
communication among wind energy
developers and Federal, State, tribal,
and local conservation agencies. When
used in concert with appropriate
regulatory tools, the Guidelines are the
best practical approach for conserving
species of concern. We are asking OMB
to renew approval for the information
collection requirements in the
Guidelines. We are not making any
changes to the requirements.
The Guidelines discuss various risks
to species of concern from wind energy
projects, including collisions with wind
turbines and associated infrastructure;
loss and degradation of habitat from
turbines and infrastructure;
fragmentation of large habitat blocks
into smaller segments that may not
support sensitive species; displacement
and behavioral changes; and indirect
effects, such as increased predator
populations or introduction of invasive
plants. The Guidelines assist developers
in identifying species of concern that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:42 Dec 29, 2014
Jkt 235001
Completion
time per
response
(hours)
Number of
responses
160
........................
may potentially be affected by proposed
projects, including, but not limited to:
• Migratory birds;
• Bats;
• Bald and golden eagles and other
birds of prey;
• Prairie chickens and sage grouse;
and
• Listed, proposed, or candidate
endangered and threatened species.
The Guidelines follow a tiered
approach. The wind energy developer
begins at Tier 1 or Tier 2, which entails
gathering existing data to help identify
any potential risks to wildlife and their
habitats at proposed wind energy
project sites. The developer then
proceeds through subsequent tiers, as
appropriate, to collect information in
increasing detail until the level of risk
is adequately ascertained and a decision
on whether or not to develop the site
can be made. Many projects may not
proceed beyond Tier 1 or 2, when
developers become aware of potential
barriers, including high risks to wildlife.
Developers would only have an interest
in adhering to the Guidelines for those
projects that proceed beyond Tier 1 or
2.
At each tier, wind energy developers
and operators should retain
documentation to provide to the
Service. Such documentation may
include copies of correspondence with
the Service, results of pre- and postconstruction studies conducted at
project sites, bird and bat conservation
strategies, or any other record that
supports a developer’s adherence to the
Guidelines. The extent of the
documentation will depend on the
conditions of the site being developed.
Sites with greater risk of impacts to
wildlife and habitats will likely involve
more extensive communication with the
Service and longer durations of pre- and
post-construction studies than sites with
little risk.
Distributed or community-scale wind
energy projects are unlikely to have
significant adverse impacts to wildlife
and their habitats. The Guidelines
recommend that developers of these
small-scale projects do the desktop
analysis described in Tier 1 or Tier 2
using publicly available information to
determine whether they should
communicate with the Service. Since
such project designs usually include a
single turbine associated with existing
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total annual
burden hours
707,430
Nonhour
burden cost
per response
........................
Total annual
nonhour
burden cost
7,187,265
development, conducting a Tier 1 or
Tier 2 analysis for distributed or
community-scale wind energy projects
should incur limited nonhour burden
costs. For such projects, if there is no
potential risk identified, a developer
will have no need to communicate with
the Service regarding the project or to
conduct studies described in Tiers 3, 4,
and 5.
Adherence to the Guidelines is
voluntary. Following the Guidelines
does not relieve any individual,
company, or agency of the responsibility
to comply with applicable laws and
regulations. Developers of wind energy
projects have a responsibility to comply
with all applicable laws and regulations,
including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Comments Received and Our Responses
Comments: On July 3, 2014, we
published in the Federal Register (79
FR 38055) a notice of our intent to
request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that
notice, we solicited comments for 60
days, ending on September 2, 2014. We
received comments from the wind
energy industry, a State agency, an
environmental consulting firm, an
environmental nongovernmental
organization (NGO), and an
independent consultant to the
environmental NGO community. The
comments are sorted below by relevance
to the questions posed in the July 3,
2014, notice, followed by our responses.
We invited comments concerning this
information collection on:
Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will have
practical utility.
Commenters felt that the collection of
information was necessary and that the
information has practical utility. We did
not receive any comments to the
contrary. It was noted that the necessity
and utility of information collected are
dependent upon whether information
has previously been collected in the
study area. We agree that existing
information should be used, where
available. The Guidelines encourage use
of credible, publicly available
information including published
studies, technical reports, databases,
and information from agencies, local
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
conservation organizations, and/or local
experts. Another commenter noted that
any proposal to conduct a study should
define the questions that are expected to
be answered, because studies are
sometimes proposed without regard for
whether the information learned will
contribute to useful project evaluation.
We agree that information should not be
collected for the sake of collecting
information. To accomplish this, the
Guidelines pose questions within each
Tier to help developers and Service staff
identify data needs and any necessary
surveys or studies.
The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information.
One commenter noted that the
estimate of 50 responses and
respondents annually submitting
information related to Tier 4 seems low
considering that the Guidelines are
intended to apply not only to projects
initiated after publication of the
Guidelines, but also to projects that
were already in development and
already operating. Another commenter
provided a revised estimated burden
calculated by members of the wind
energy industry community. We used
the industry’s figures in revising the
estimate of the burden, and also agreed
with the comment that the number of
respondents in Tier 4 should be higher
to reflect ongoing fatality studies at
existing facilities. In addition, we
revised the total number of respondents
and responses based on the number of
wind energy projects the Service
reviewed in fiscal year 2013. These
changes are reflected in the table above.
We have decreased our estimates for the
total number of respondents. Although
Tier 4 responses have increased in
proportion to the total number of
respondents, the number reflected in the
table above is less than what we
provided in our previous request to
OMB.
A third commenter noted that the
burden estimates are dependent upon
the size of the project, complexity of the
issues, and experience and equipment
needs of the consultant, as well as
previous information available for the
site. We agree that the factors listed all
affect estimates of project costs.
Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected.
Regarding the quality of the data,
several commenters felt that there
should be a standardized methodology
for collection of pre- and postconstruction data. We agree that
standardized methodologies are ideal.
The Guidelines encourage the use of
common methods and metrics. Such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:42 Dec 29, 2014
Jkt 235001
standardization allows for comparisons
among projects and provides some
certainty regarding what will be asked
of a developer for specific projects.
However, because of the need for
flexibility in application, the Guidelines
do not make specific recommendations
on protocol elements for pre- and postconstruction studies. The Service’s
wind energy Web site and the
Guidelines direct developers to tools
and resources that have been developed
and compiled through collaborative
efforts and partnerships between
Federal, State, and tribal agencies; wind
energy developers; and NGOs interested
in wind energy-wildlife interactions.
We received comments on specific
survey methodologies and study design
considerations, which detailed the
manner in which studies should be
designed, executed, and evaluated, and
provided analysis of the usefulness and
efficacy of certain pre- and postconstruction survey methods. As noted,
the Guidelines do not recommend
certain methods over others, and instead
point users to methods generally
accepted by the wind-wildlife
community as scientifically valid with
an aim towards greater consistency.
One commenter suggested that in
addition to standardized data collection,
post-construction fatality monitoring
should also be automated using new
and emerging technologies, and that
these automated systems should be
required as conditions of receiving
incidental take permits under the
Endangered Species Act or Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. This
suggestion extends beyond the purview
of the Guidelines in terms of permitting
requirements. In addition, we do not
have sufficient information about these
systems at this time to evaluate their
efficacy. If such technologies become a
reality, their use, along with a suite of
other existing tools, could potentially
improve estimates of strike-related
fatalities at wind energy facilities.
Regarding the utility of the data, one
commenter questioned whether the use
of voluntary guidelines is effective due
to a lack of use by public and private
entities. The commenter referenced a
map that shows that wind energy
facilities have been, and continue to be,
developed in areas of high risk to
migratory birds, contrary to the purpose
of the Guidelines to guide development
away from areas of highest risk to more
suitable areas. We are currently in the
process of evaluating the efficacy and
use of the Guidelines, and the Service
is considering regulatory options. Based
on feedback from the wind energy
industry, and from Service staff, the
Guidelines are often successful in
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78467
improving communication and lead to
development of wind projects that are
safer for wildlife, but in other cases are
not successful in preventing wind
energy facilities from being constructed
in areas of high risk to wildlife.
Regarding clarity, several commenters
indicated the need for greater
transparency in pre- and postconstruction monitoring results, study
design and protocol, and adaptive
management plans. Several reasons
were given regarding the need for
greater transparency, including
facilitating study replication and
consistency, allowing public evaluation
of the effectiveness of the Guidelines,
improved quality of information
collected, and the need for greater
public oversight generally. It was noted
that often these data are treated as
proprietary information, or are
considered as ‘‘confidential business
information’’ and are withheld from
requests made via the Freedom of
Information Act. While we agree that
the public availability of data would
facilitate greater oversight, improved
consistency and comparability in study
design and results, and improved
landscape-level and cumulative effects
analyses, we do not have the authority
to require companies to share data that
they own. Often, we receive reports that
contain an analysis of data collected,
and not the raw data itself. The
information that is provided to us will
continue to be evaluated on a case-bycase basis when it is requested via the
Freedom of Information Act. We are
developing tools that would allow
companies to transmit fatality
monitoring data via an online system
that would provide anonymity, but still
make the data available. We will
continue to pursue other means of
increasing the transparency of
information related to study
methodology and fatality data.
Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
One commenter felt that the burden of
adhering to the Guidelines is adequately
compensated for by the discretion that
will be exercised by the Office of Law
Enforcement should violations of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGEPA) occur. This comment has been
noted, although it does not provide
suggestions for ways to further
minimize the burden of the information
collection. We also received a comment
suggesting burdens could be minimized
through use of ‘‘desktop tools’’ or
existing publicly available information
online in Tiers 1 and 2, and by siting
projects in areas with minimal risk to
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
78468
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
rare, threatened, and endangered
species. We agree with the commenter
that use of existing information reduces
the burden on respondents. The
Guidelines encourage use of credible,
publicly available information,
including published studies, technical
reports, databases, and information from
agencies, local conservation
organizations, and/or local experts. We
also agree that burdens are reduced by
siting projects in areas with least risk to
wildlife and their habitats, and note that
this is exactly what we hope to
accomplish by working with developers
to implement the Guidelines.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Other Comments
Several other comments were
provided that were not pertinent to the
questions asked in the notice. These
comments addressed regulatory tools for
migratory bird conservation, BGEPA
programmatic permits for incidental
take of eagles, suggestions for what
types of mitigation methods should be
acceptable as compensation for loss of
protected species, enforcement actions
by the Office of Law Enforcement
against wind facilities compared with
other energy technologies, splitting
environmental study responsibilities
among separate consultants, and
stakeholder involvement in the
development of adaptive management
plans. One commenter also noted that
the Service did not estimate the burden
on the public to access the information
collected via Freedom of Information
Act requests, administrative appeals,
and lawsuits. The Paperwork Reduction
Act requires that we analyze the burden
placed on those who submit information
to us, not on the burden of others
attempting to access that information.
Request for Public Comments
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:42 Dec 29, 2014
Jkt 235001
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: December 23, 2014.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–30481 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–NCTC–2014–N258; FF09X32000–
FXGO16610900400–145]
Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Application for
Training, National Conservation
Training Center
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for
review and approval. We summarize the
ICR below and describe the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost. This information collection is
scheduled to expire on December 31,
2014. 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. However, under OMB
regulations, we may continue to
conduct or sponsor this information
collection while it is pending at OMB.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before January 29, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and
suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov (email).
Please provide a copy of your comments
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803 (mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0115’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_
grey@fws.gov (email) or 703–358–2482
(telephone). You may review the ICR
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
online at https://www.reginfo.gov. Follow
the instructions to review Department of
the Interior collections under review by
OMB.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Collection Request
OMB Control Number: 1018–0115.
Title: Application for Training,
National Conservation Training Center.
Service Form Number: 3–2193.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents:
Individuals, businesses, organizations,
and State, local, and tribal governments.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Estimated Annual Number of
Respondents: 500.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
500.
Estimated Time per Response: 10
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 84.
Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service National Conservation Training
Center (NCTC) in Shepherdstown, West
Virginia, provides natural resource and
other professional training for Service
employees, employees of other Federal
agencies, and other affiliations,
including State agencies, private
individuals, not-for-profit organizations,
and university personnel. FWS Form 3–
2193 (Training Application) is a quick
and easy method for prospective
students who are not from the
Department of the Interior to request
training. We encourage applicants to use
FWS Form 3–2193 and to submit their
requests electronically. However, we do
not require applicants to complete both
a training form required by their agency
and FWS Form 3–2193. NCTC will
accept a training request in any format
as long as it identifies the name,
address, and phone number of the
applicant; sponsoring agency; class
name; start date; and all required
financial payment information.
NCTC uses data from FWS Form 3–
2193 to generate class rosters, class
transcripts, and statistics, and as a
budgeting tool for projecting training
requirements. It is also used to track
attendance, mandatory requirements,
tuition, and invoicing for all NCTCsponsored courses both onsite and
offsite.
Comments Received and Our Responses
Comments: On July 3, 2014, we
published in the Federal Register (79
FR 38055) a notice of our intent to
request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78465-78468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30481]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-HQ-ES-2014-N257; FXHC11220900000-145-FF09E33000]
Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize
the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the
estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to
expire on December 31, 2014. 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. However, under OMB
regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information
collection while it is pending at OMB.
DATES: You must submit comments on or before January 29, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at
OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov
(email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
(mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov (email). Please include ``1018-0148'' in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information
about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_grey@fws.gov (email) or 703-
358-2482 (telephone). You may review the ICR online at https://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the
Interior collections under review by OMB.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Collection Request
OMB Control Number: 1018-0148.
Title: Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines.
Service Form Number: None.
Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: Developers and operators of wind energy
facilities.
Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion
Number of Number of time per Total annual Nonhour burden Total annual
Activity (reporting and recordkeeping) respondents responses response burden hours cost per nonhour burden
(hours) response cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 (Desktop Analysis)............................... 40 40 81 3,240 $825 $33,000
Tier 2 (Site Characterization).......................... 35 35 369 12,915 3,750 131,250
Tier 3 (Pre-construction studies)....................... 30 30 14,695 440,850 149,288 4,478,640
Tier 4 (Post-construction fatality monitoring and 45 45 4,023 181,035 40,875 1,839,375
habitat studies).......................................
Tier 5 (Other post-construction studies)................ 10 10 6,939 69,390 70,500 705,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78466]]
Totals.............................................. 160 160 .............. 707,430 .............. 7,187,265
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $7,187,265. Costs will depend
on the size and complexity of issues associated with each project.
These expenses may include, but are not limited to: Travel expenses for
site visits, studies conducted, and meetings with the Service and other
Federal and State agencies; training in survey methodologies; data
management; special transportation, such as all-terrain vehicle or
helicopter; equipment needed for acoustic, telemetry, or radar
monitoring, and carcass storage. The Tier 3 estimate is very high
because it includes every type of pre-construction monitoring study
that could potentially be conducted. It is more likely that a selection
of these studies will be performed at any given site, depending on the
species of concern identified and other site-specific conditions.
Abstract: As wind energy production increased, both developers and
wildlife agencies recognized the need for a system to evaluate and
address the potential negative impacts of wind energy projects on
species of concern. We issued voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy
Guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/windenergy) in March 2012 to provide a
structured, scientific process for addressing wildlife conservation
concerns at all stages of land-based wind energy development. The
Guidelines also promote effective communication among wind energy
developers and Federal, State, tribal, and local conservation agencies.
When used in concert with appropriate regulatory tools, the Guidelines
are the best practical approach for conserving species of concern. We
are asking OMB to renew approval for the information collection
requirements in the Guidelines. We are not making any changes to the
requirements.
The Guidelines discuss various risks to species of concern from
wind energy projects, including collisions with wind turbines and
associated infrastructure; loss and degradation of habitat from
turbines and infrastructure; fragmentation of large habitat blocks into
smaller segments that may not support sensitive species; displacement
and behavioral changes; and indirect effects, such as increased
predator populations or introduction of invasive plants. The Guidelines
assist developers in identifying species of concern that may
potentially be affected by proposed projects, including, but not
limited to:
Migratory birds;
Bats;
Bald and golden eagles and other birds of prey;
Prairie chickens and sage grouse; and
Listed, proposed, or candidate endangered and threatened
species.
The Guidelines follow a tiered approach. The wind energy developer
begins at Tier 1 or Tier 2, which entails gathering existing data to
help identify any potential risks to wildlife and their habitats at
proposed wind energy project sites. The developer then proceeds through
subsequent tiers, as appropriate, to collect information in increasing
detail until the level of risk is adequately ascertained and a decision
on whether or not to develop the site can be made. Many projects may
not proceed beyond Tier 1 or 2, when developers become aware of
potential barriers, including high risks to wildlife. Developers would
only have an interest in adhering to the Guidelines for those projects
that proceed beyond Tier 1 or 2.
At each tier, wind energy developers and operators should retain
documentation to provide to the Service. Such documentation may include
copies of correspondence with the Service, results of pre- and post-
construction studies conducted at project sites, bird and bat
conservation strategies, or any other record that supports a
developer's adherence to the Guidelines. The extent of the
documentation will depend on the conditions of the site being
developed. Sites with greater risk of impacts to wildlife and habitats
will likely involve more extensive communication with the Service and
longer durations of pre- and post-construction studies than sites with
little risk.
Distributed or community-scale wind energy projects are unlikely to
have significant adverse impacts to wildlife and their habitats. The
Guidelines recommend that developers of these small-scale projects do
the desktop analysis described in Tier 1 or Tier 2 using publicly
available information to determine whether they should communicate with
the Service. Since such project designs usually include a single
turbine associated with existing development, conducting a Tier 1 or
Tier 2 analysis for distributed or community-scale wind energy projects
should incur limited nonhour burden costs. For such projects, if there
is no potential risk identified, a developer will have no need to
communicate with the Service regarding the project or to conduct
studies described in Tiers 3, 4, and 5.
Adherence to the Guidelines is voluntary. Following the Guidelines
does not relieve any individual, company, or agency of the
responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations.
Developers of wind energy projects have a responsibility to comply with
all applicable laws and regulations, including the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the
Endangered Species Act.
Comments Received and Our Responses
Comments: On July 3, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79
FR 38055) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for
60 days, ending on September 2, 2014. We received comments from the
wind energy industry, a State agency, an environmental consulting firm,
an environmental nongovernmental organization (NGO), and an independent
consultant to the environmental NGO community. The comments are sorted
below by relevance to the questions posed in the July 3, 2014, notice,
followed by our responses. We invited comments concerning this
information collection on:
Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
Commenters felt that the collection of information was necessary
and that the information has practical utility. We did not receive any
comments to the contrary. It was noted that the necessity and utility
of information collected are dependent upon whether information has
previously been collected in the study area. We agree that existing
information should be used, where available. The Guidelines encourage
use of credible, publicly available information including published
studies, technical reports, databases, and information from agencies,
local
[[Page 78467]]
conservation organizations, and/or local experts. Another commenter
noted that any proposal to conduct a study should define the questions
that are expected to be answered, because studies are sometimes
proposed without regard for whether the information learned will
contribute to useful project evaluation. We agree that information
should not be collected for the sake of collecting information. To
accomplish this, the Guidelines pose questions within each Tier to help
developers and Service staff identify data needs and any necessary
surveys or studies.
The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of
information.
One commenter noted that the estimate of 50 responses and
respondents annually submitting information related to Tier 4 seems low
considering that the Guidelines are intended to apply not only to
projects initiated after publication of the Guidelines, but also to
projects that were already in development and already operating.
Another commenter provided a revised estimated burden calculated by
members of the wind energy industry community. We used the industry's
figures in revising the estimate of the burden, and also agreed with
the comment that the number of respondents in Tier 4 should be higher
to reflect ongoing fatality studies at existing facilities. In
addition, we revised the total number of respondents and responses
based on the number of wind energy projects the Service reviewed in
fiscal year 2013. These changes are reflected in the table above. We
have decreased our estimates for the total number of respondents.
Although Tier 4 responses have increased in proportion to the total
number of respondents, the number reflected in the table above is less
than what we provided in our previous request to OMB.
A third commenter noted that the burden estimates are dependent
upon the size of the project, complexity of the issues, and experience
and equipment needs of the consultant, as well as previous information
available for the site. We agree that the factors listed all affect
estimates of project costs.
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected.
Regarding the quality of the data, several commenters felt that
there should be a standardized methodology for collection of pre- and
post-construction data. We agree that standardized methodologies are
ideal. The Guidelines encourage the use of common methods and metrics.
Such standardization allows for comparisons among projects and provides
some certainty regarding what will be asked of a developer for specific
projects. However, because of the need for flexibility in application,
the Guidelines do not make specific recommendations on protocol
elements for pre- and post-construction studies. The Service's wind
energy Web site and the Guidelines direct developers to tools and
resources that have been developed and compiled through collaborative
efforts and partnerships between Federal, State, and tribal agencies;
wind energy developers; and NGOs interested in wind energy-wildlife
interactions.
We received comments on specific survey methodologies and study
design considerations, which detailed the manner in which studies
should be designed, executed, and evaluated, and provided analysis of
the usefulness and efficacy of certain pre- and post-construction
survey methods. As noted, the Guidelines do not recommend certain
methods over others, and instead point users to methods generally
accepted by the wind-wildlife community as scientifically valid with an
aim towards greater consistency.
One commenter suggested that in addition to standardized data
collection, post-construction fatality monitoring should also be
automated using new and emerging technologies, and that these automated
systems should be required as conditions of receiving incidental take
permits under the Endangered Species Act or Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. This suggestion extends beyond the purview of the
Guidelines in terms of permitting requirements. In addition, we do not
have sufficient information about these systems at this time to
evaluate their efficacy. If such technologies become a reality, their
use, along with a suite of other existing tools, could potentially
improve estimates of strike-related fatalities at wind energy
facilities.
Regarding the utility of the data, one commenter questioned whether
the use of voluntary guidelines is effective due to a lack of use by
public and private entities. The commenter referenced a map that shows
that wind energy facilities have been, and continue to be, developed in
areas of high risk to migratory birds, contrary to the purpose of the
Guidelines to guide development away from areas of highest risk to more
suitable areas. We are currently in the process of evaluating the
efficacy and use of the Guidelines, and the Service is considering
regulatory options. Based on feedback from the wind energy industry,
and from Service staff, the Guidelines are often successful in
improving communication and lead to development of wind projects that
are safer for wildlife, but in other cases are not successful in
preventing wind energy facilities from being constructed in areas of
high risk to wildlife.
Regarding clarity, several commenters indicated the need for
greater transparency in pre- and post-construction monitoring results,
study design and protocol, and adaptive management plans. Several
reasons were given regarding the need for greater transparency,
including facilitating study replication and consistency, allowing
public evaluation of the effectiveness of the Guidelines, improved
quality of information collected, and the need for greater public
oversight generally. It was noted that often these data are treated as
proprietary information, or are considered as ``confidential business
information'' and are withheld from requests made via the Freedom of
Information Act. While we agree that the public availability of data
would facilitate greater oversight, improved consistency and
comparability in study design and results, and improved landscape-level
and cumulative effects analyses, we do not have the authority to
require companies to share data that they own. Often, we receive
reports that contain an analysis of data collected, and not the raw
data itself. The information that is provided to us will continue to be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis when it is requested via the Freedom
of Information Act. We are developing tools that would allow companies
to transmit fatality monitoring data via an online system that would
provide anonymity, but still make the data available. We will continue
to pursue other means of increasing the transparency of information
related to study methodology and fatality data.
Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents.
One commenter felt that the burden of adhering to the Guidelines is
adequately compensated for by the discretion that will be exercised by
the Office of Law Enforcement should violations of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)
occur. This comment has been noted, although it does not provide
suggestions for ways to further minimize the burden of the information
collection. We also received a comment suggesting burdens could be
minimized through use of ``desktop tools'' or existing publicly
available information online in Tiers 1 and 2, and by siting projects
in areas with minimal risk to
[[Page 78468]]
rare, threatened, and endangered species. We agree with the commenter
that use of existing information reduces the burden on respondents. The
Guidelines encourage use of credible, publicly available information,
including published studies, technical reports, databases, and
information from agencies, local conservation organizations, and/or
local experts. We also agree that burdens are reduced by siting
projects in areas with least risk to wildlife and their habitats, and
note that this is exactly what we hope to accomplish by working with
developers to implement the Guidelines.
Other Comments
Several other comments were provided that were not pertinent to the
questions asked in the notice. These comments addressed regulatory
tools for migratory bird conservation, BGEPA programmatic permits for
incidental take of eagles, suggestions for what types of mitigation
methods should be acceptable as compensation for loss of protected
species, enforcement actions by the Office of Law Enforcement against
wind facilities compared with other energy technologies, splitting
environmental study responsibilities among separate consultants, and
stakeholder involvement in the development of adaptive management
plans. One commenter also noted that the Service did not estimate the
burden on the public to access the information collected via Freedom of
Information Act requests, administrative appeals, and lawsuits. The
Paperwork Reduction Act requires that we analyze the burden placed on
those who submit information to us, not on the burden of others
attempting to access that information.
Request for Public Comments
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this
collection of information;
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your address, phone number, email
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it
will be done.
Dated: December 23, 2014.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30481 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
