[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28858-28860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13358]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0092; 91200-FF09M20300-189-FXMB123109EAGLE]
Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle
Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) uses a collision
risk model (CRM) to predict the number of golden and bald eagles that
may be killed at new wind facilities. The model incorporates existing
information on eagle exposure and collision probability in the form of
prior distributions (priors). The Service has undertaken an analysis to
update the priors using all available data that meet specific criteria
for both species of eagle. This notice announces the availability of a
summary report of that analysis, which generates new exposure and
collision priors for both species of eagle. We are soliciting public
comments on the summary report, which will be considered by the Service
before using the new priors in the CRM.
DATES: To ensure consideration of written comments, they must be
submitted on or before August 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by one of the following
methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-HQ-MB-2017-xxxx, which is the
docket number for this notice, and follow the directions for submitting
comments.
[[Page 28859]]
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0092; Division of Policy,
Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Request for Information below for more information).
We request that you send comments by only one of the methods
described above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Availability of
Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliza Savage, at 703-358-2329
(telephone), or eliza_savage@fws.gov (email). Individuals who are
hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service
at 800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) uses a collision risk
model (CRM) to predict the number of golden and bald eagles that may be
killed at new wind facilities (USFWS 2013; New et al. 2015). The CRM
incorporates existing knowledge of eagle use around a proposed wind
facility (exposure) and the probability of an eagle colliding with an
operating turbine (collision probability). Essentially, the CRM uses
three estimates to generate an annual eagle fatality estimate in the
form of a probability distribution. These estimates are: (1) A project-
specific estimate of eagle exposure; (2) a project-specific estimate of
the amount of hazardous area and time that will be created by the
project; and (3) an estimate of the probability that an exposed eagle
that enters the hazardous area will be struck and injured or killed by
a turbine blade. The median (50th quantile) fatality rate of the CRM-
generated probability distribution is the point on the distribution at
which there is an equal risk of under- and overestimating eagle
fatalities. The Service uses the 80th quantile of the CRM fatality
probability distribution to determine the take limit for incidental
take permits, which lowers the risk of underestimating eagle take to a
20% chance.
In our 2016 revision to the eagle take regulations (81 FR 91494,
Dec. 16, 2016), the Service reaffirmed both our intent to use the CRM
to obtain initial estimates of eagle fatalities at new wind facilities,
and that we would undertake a review of the background data used in the
model to generate the estimates. The model is constructed using a
Bayesian framework, and as such incorporates existing information on
eagle exposure and collision probability in the form of prior
distributions (priors). The priors are formally combined with site-
specific data on exposure and the amount of hazardous area and
operational time for a site to estimate the expected number of annual
eagle collision fatalities.
The current priors for the CRM use data for golden eagles from nine
sites with complete survey effort information for exposure, and four
sites for collision probability (New et al. 2015). There were no data
available to estimate parameters specific to bald eagles when we
initially developed the model, so the golden eagle priors were used as
surrogates for bald eagles. Public comments on the 2016 eagle rule
revision were critical of the Service's CRM because the priors for
golden eagles had not been updated to include new information, and
because priors have not been developed for bald eagles even though data
on exposure and collision probability are now available for this
species. In response to these comments, the Service committed to
updating the golden eagle priors, and to explore whether sufficient
data exist to develop separate bald eagle exposure and collision
priors.
The Service has undertaken that analysis using all available data
that meet specific criteria for both species of eagle. This notice
announces the availability of a summary report of that analysis, which
includes new exposure and collision priors for both species of eagle.
The report may be downloaded from the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0092. You can
also find the report on the Service's website at: https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/eagle-management.php. The Service
intends to incorporate these updated priors into our CRM after
considering comments received in response to this notice; that update
will be in the form of a revised version of Appendix D of the Eagle
Conservation Plan Guidance (USFWS 2013).
For this update, the Service reviewed data sets for 419 wind energy
facilities, but many did not meet our criteria for incorporation into
the priors (see the summary report for criteria used to filter
projects). Data from 71 new and the nine original wind projects were
used for the updated exposure priors. Of these 80 sites, 61 provided
data for golden eagles and 59 for bald eagles. For the collision
priors, 18 new sites in addition to the original four sites were
identified as having data sufficient to include in the updated
collision priors. We used data from 21 sites for golden eagles and 14
for bald eagles in the collision-prior update. The updated exposure
prior is lower for both species than the prior currently in use. The
updated collision prior is slightly lower than the current prior for
golden eagles and higher for bald eagles.
Many of the commenters on the 2016 eagle rule revision encouraged
the Service to develop a specific bald eagle prior because they believe
collision risk for bald eagles is lower than for golden eagles. The
data available to the Service suggest that there is more variation in
both exposure and collision risk for bald eagles, and that uncertainty
results in a higher expected collision probability for this species.
The Service does not regard this outcome as counter-intuitive, because
the range in abundance of bald eagles across the landscape is far
greater than for golden eagles, and where bald eagles are abundant,
they engage in social behaviors and intra-specific interactions that
may make them more vulnerable than golden eagles to collisions (81 FR
91552). Thus, the implication that bald eagles are at high risk at a
few wind facilities, while their risk is much lower at many others, is
tenable. The Service acknowledges, however, that the bald eagle
collision prior is based on data from relatively few sites that do not
span the range of bald eagle density conditions that exist across the
country, and therefore may not be representative of all locations.
Given this, the Service is considering three alternatives for how to
incorporate species-specific priors for bald eagles into the CRM and
fatality modeling process:
(1) Use the updated species-specific priors, and use the 80th
quantile of the CRM fatality estimates as the initial permitted take
number for permits, as is the current practice.
(2) Use the updated species-specific priors, but because the status
of bald eagles is secure, adopt a risk-tolerant policy for bald eagles
and select a more liberal quantile on the CRM fatality distribution as
the initial permitted take number for this species.
(3) Given the limitations in data available to inform the bald
eagle priors, initiate an expert elicitation process to further refine
the bald eagle priors.
Under any of these scenarios, the Service would use data submitted
under
[[Page 28860]]
permits to make updates to the priors in the future.
Alternative 1 would mean that for a similar level of eagle use
observed at a project site, the Service would use higher fatality
estimates for bald eagles than for golden eagles. Alternative 2 would
be a decision by the Service to be more `risk-tolerant' for bald
eagles. This would mean that initial fatality predictions would be
lower, however it would also likely mean that more permits would have
to be amended to increase the permitted take over time (i.e., the
Service would be underestimating take more often). Alternative 3 would
be a decision by the Service that more information is needed to
understand the potential variability of exposure and collision
probability for bald eagles. Such a process could result in either
higher or lower (or more variable) priors. With this notice, we are
soliciting input from the public on these three alternatives, and we
will take those comments into consideration in making a final decision.
Many commenters on the draft 2016 rule urged the Service to adopt
changes to the golden eagle CRM priors based on a recent peer-reviewed
scientific article by Bay et al. (2016). Service staff coordinated with
authors of the Bay et al. paper in development of this update, and all
data used in the Bay et al. paper that were available to us and that
met our criteria were incorporated. The Service decided not to
incorporate the results of the Bay et al. paper directly, however, for
two main reasons. First, the Service could access and utilize more data
than were used in the Bay et al. paper, and so our updated priors
incorporate more recent information from a wider range of projects and
sites than were used by Bay et al. Second, the Bay et al. analysis used
a fatality estimator that did not account for the possibility of
undetected eagle deaths during mortality monitoring when no dead eagles
were found. The Service uses models in our update that account for
imperfect detection when dead eagles are not encountered during
monitoring, because there is ample evidence that finding no dead eagles
does not mean there were no eagle fatalities. Thus, although the
Service's updated collision probability for golden eagles is higher
than that reported by Bay et al., our approach is more accurate and
consistent with our risk-averse policy with respect to estimating and
managing eagle take.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that the entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available
at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their
entirety.
Literature Cited
Bay, K., Nasman, K., Erickson, W., Taylor, K., Kosciuch, K.
(2016). Predicting Eagle Fatalities at Wind Facilities, Journal of
Wildlife Management 80:1000-1010.
New, L., Bjerre, E., Millsap, B., Otto, M.C., Runge, M.C.
(2015). A Collision Risk Model to Predict Avian Fatalities at Wind
Facilities: An Example Using Golden Eagles, Aquila chrysaetos, PLOS
ONE, journal.pone.0130978.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Eagle conservation plan
guidance. Module 1-land-based wind energy. Version 2. Division of
Migratory Bird Management, Washington, DC. URL http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/eagleconservationplanguidance.pdf.
Dated: April 6, 2018.
Susan Combs,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2018-13358 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-55-P