Information Collection Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Bald Eagle Post-delisting Monitoring

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R3-MB-2009-N149] [30120-1113-0000-D3]

Information Collection Sent to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for Approval; Bald Eagle Post-delisting Monitoring

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We (Fish and Wildlife Service, Service) have sent an

Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval.

The ICR, which is summarized below, describes the nature of the

collection and the estimated burden and cost. 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.

DATES: You must send comments on or before August 21, 2009.

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 [email protected] (e-mail).

Please provide a copy of your comments to Hope Grey, Information

Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ,

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail) or hope_

[email protected] (e-mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information

about this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or

by telephone at (703) 358-2482.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control Number: None. This is a new collection.

Title: Bald Eagle Post-delisting Monitoring.

Type of Request: New.

Affected Public: States, tribes, and local governments, Federal

land managers, and nongovernmental partners.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: Once every 5 years.

Note: For each 5-year survey, we estimate a total of 48 respondents

will provide 48 responses totaling 1,478 burden hours. The burden

estimates below are annualized over the 3-year period of OMB approval.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 16.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 16.

Estimated Time per Response: 30.8 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 493.

Abstract: This information collection implements the requirements

of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). The bald

eagle in the lower 48 States was removed from the List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife on August 8, 2007 (July 9, 2007, 72 FR 37346).

Section 4(g) of the ESA requires that all species that are recovered

and removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

(delisted) be monitored in cooperation with the States for a period of

not less than 5 years. The purpose of this requirement is to detect any

failure of a recovered species to sustain itself without the

protections of the ESA.

The bald eagle has a large geographic distribution that includes a

substantial amount of non-Federal land. Although the ESA requires that

monitoring of recovered species be conducted for not less than 5 years,

the life history of bald eagles is such that it is appropriate to

monitor this species for a longer period of time in order to

meaningfully evaluate whether or not the recovered species continues to

maintain its recovered status.

We plan to monitor the status of the bald eagle by collecting data

on occupied nests over a 20-year period with sampling events held once

every 5 years. The Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle

(Plan) describes monitoring procedures and methods.

When OMB takes action on this ICR, we will publish a notice in the

Federal Register announcing the availability of the final Plan. If you

would like a copy of the Plan before the notice of availability is

published, contact Hope Grey (see ADDRESSES) or you can obtain a copy

online at http://www.reginfo.gov.

Comments: On July 9, 2007, we published a notice of availability

for the draft Plan in the Federal Register (72 FR 37373). We solicited

comments for a period of 90 days, ending on October 9, 2007. In

addition, in the fall of 2007, we gave two web presentations for State

biologists. These presentations focused on the survey and data

collection methods. We considered all comments from the Federal

Register notice and the web presentations and addressed them in the

Plan.

Comment: Adequate funding for monitoring has not been identified.

Response: The Service will fund the area frame surveys for the

initial baseline survey, including the use of aircraft and pilots to

complete the surveys. We will continue to work with the States, tribes,

and our other partners to secure funding for future surveys.

Comment: Five-year intervals between monitoring are insufficient.

Response: In order to assess several generations of bald eagles

after delisting, this Plan recommends monitoring bald eagle nesting

populations at 5-year intervals (which would follow the development

cycle to maturity for one generation) for four generations or a total

of 20 years. This exceeds the requirements of the ESA. Many States

monitor bald eagle nests on an annual basis because the surveys provide

valuable resource data. Some States have indicated that their future

bald eagle monitoring will be greatly reduced due to its recovery and

the need to allocate funding to other areas. Thus, 5-year survey

intervals will provide more data for States where surveys are not

otherwise planned. It may also provide a cost savings for other States

if they can use these data at 5-year intervals to satisfy their needs.

[[Page 36248]]

Comment: Twenty-five percent decline is too large of an interval to

serve as a trigger mechanism for review.

Response: The goal of the Plan is to detect a 25-percent or greater

change in occupied bald eagle nests over any period, measured at 5-year

intervals based on an 80 percent chance of detecting such a change. We

believe this is a goal that both ensures continued recovery under the

ESA and is cost-effective. If a 25-percent decline is detected, it

means a reduction to a level still recognized as recovered under the

ESA. If such declines are detected, we, in conjunction with the States,

will investigate causes of those declines. At the end of the 20-year

monitoring program, we will coordinate with States and our other

partners to conduct a final review and provide recommendations to

ensure a properly managed population of the recovered bald eagle.

Comment: Implementation involves potential sampling bias due to

variable observer experience and familiarity with nesting territories.

Response: We have structured training, pre-survey preparation, and

survey protocols to minimize potential sampling bias. Though

experienced bald eagle observers may be familiar with specific nests,

pilot studies showed that the observers were able to change mindsets

from ``searching habitat'' in Area plots to ``determining the status of

specific known list nests'' in List plots, without issue. Using the

dual-observer method to determine individual detection probabilities

for observers will help account for differences in observer experience.

In planning Area plots survey routes, observers will be given maps that

show habitat, but not the location of nests, allowing survey route

planning to be based on habitat characteristics.

Comment: Conducting a large-scale monitoring project every 5 years

could create staffing problems.

Response: Staffing will require open and clear communication among

the States, tribes, and the Service. If State staff are not available

for surveys, we will draw upon local Service offices, tribal

biologists, retired Service and State employees, and experienced

volunteers to fill in as observers.

Comment: There is a lack of a comprehensive monitoring program for

environmental contaminants.

Response: We worked with the U.S. Geological Survey to develop a

searchable database/library dedicated to contaminants investigations of

bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcons. The objective was to create

a readily available source of information to consider should the bald

eagle (or peregrine) population decline. This database provides

biologists an overview of the most recent findings of contaminant

effects on these species. If additional studies are needed during post-

delisting monitoring, the database will clarify what has been studied

and what has not.

Comment: The phrase ``broad geographic areas'' in the section on

Habitat implies that the analysis of survey data may be accomplished on

something less than a rangewide scale.

Response: This is correct. If trends in nest occupancy

significantly decline over broad geographic areas, whether rangewide or

more regionally, we will investigate a change in available nesting

habitat as a possible cause and take appropriate actions, as feasible.

Comment: Customized parameters may be required in certain local

situations.

Response: We agree and have modified the Plan accordingly.

Comment: The definition of bald eagle habitat in the Plan,

especially the size of water bodies required, may not be appropriate

for some geographic regions, especially the Southwest.

Response: We modified the Plan to reflect that local conditions may

warrant modifications to the habitat being considered. Input from local

eagle biologists will be necessary in these unique or localized

conditions.

Comment: Surveys based on Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) will not

work in some States (e.g., eagle distribution is linear and follows

major waterways which cross multiple BCRs).

Response: We recognize some of the limitations of this approach,

but still maintain it is the most appropriate for application across

broad geographic areas. We will work with local biologists to further

refine the stratification on a local level.

Comment: The boundary between the Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR

and the Great Basin BCR, although correctly mapped in the Plan, is an

incorrect depiction of the margin between the two ecoregions. This has

resulted in inappropriate numbers being used in calculations of nests

in the BCR tables in the Plan.

Response: We have modified this portion of the Plan to reflect that

we will work with local biologists and others to further refine the BCR

boundaries to more accurately reflect habitat groupings and, as

appropriate, modify calculations of nests and nest densities per BCR.

We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,

including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection

of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and

(4) 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, e-mail

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: June 23, 2009

Hope Grey,

Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service.

FR Doc. E9-17387 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S