50 CFR Part 21, Subpart B - General Requirements and Exceptions

In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or “we”) published a final environmental impact statement on management of resident Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) that documented resident Canada goose population levels “that are increasingly coming into conflict with people and causing personal and public property damage.” Subsequently, the Service implemented several actions intended to reduce, manage, and control resident Canada goose populations in the continental United States and to reduce related damages; those actions included depredation and control orders that allow destruction of Canada goose nests and eggs by authorized personnel between March 1 and June 30. However, some resident Canada geese currently initiate nests in February, particularly in the southern United States, and it seems likely that in the future nest initiation dates will begin earlier and hatching of eggs will perhaps end later than dates currently experienced. Thus, the Service proposes to amend the depredation and control orders to allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs at any time of year.

Introduced, nonnative, alien, and invasive species in Hawaii displace, compete with, and consume native species, some of which are endangered, threatened, or otherwise in need of additional protection in order to increase or maintain viable populations. To protect native species, we establish a control order for cattle egrets ( Bubulcus ibis ) and barn owls ( Tyto alba ), two invasive migratory bird species in Hawaii, under the direction of Executive Order 13112. We also make available the supporting final environmental assessment, the finding of no significant impact, and public comments for this control order.

The State of California has implemented an online permitting and reporting system compatible with the system that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), use for reporting take of raptors from the wild for falconry. We change the Web address for falconers in California to report takes, acquisitions, transfers, and losses of falconry birds.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, us, or we), intend to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to authorize incidental take of migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We are considering rulemaking to address various approaches to regulating incidental take of migratory birds, including issuance of general incidental take authorizations for some types of hazards to birds associated with particular industry sectors; issuance of individual permits authorizing incidental take from particular projects or activities; development of memoranda of understanding with Federal agencies authorizing incidental take from those agencies' operations and activities; and/or development of voluntary guidance for industry sectors regarding operational techniques or technologies that can avoid or minimize incidental take. The rulemaking would establish appropriate standards for any such regulatory approach to ensure that incidental take of migratory birds is appropriately mitigated, which may include requiring measures to avoid or minimize take or securing compensation. We invite input from other Federal and State agencies, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and members of the public on the scope of the PEIS, the pertinent issues we should address, and alternatives to our proposed approaches for regulating incidental take.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 1, 2015, to propose permit regulations to govern the use of captive-bred, trained raptors to control or take birds or other wildlife to mitigate damage or other problems, including risks to human health and safety. In that proposed rule, we provided a partially incorrect address for the submission of hard-copy comments and some incorrect information regarding information collection requirements. With this document, we correct these errors.

We propose permit regulations to govern the use of captive-bred, trained raptors to control or take birds or other wildlife to mitigate damage or other problems, including risks to human health and safety. This action would allow us to respond to increasing public interest in the use of trained raptors to haze (scare) depredating and other problem birds from airports and agricultural crops while maintaining our statutory responsibility to protect migratory birds.

We are removing two regulations that set forth certain depredation orders for migratory birds. There have been no requests for authorization of a depredation order under one regulation we are removing, and no reports of activities undertaken under the other in the last 10 years. Control of depredating birds may be undertaken under depredation permits in accordance with the regulations already set forth.

We reduce the information collection requirements for participants in the light goose conservation order, which authorizes methods of take to increase harvest of certain populations of light geese in the Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, and Pacific Flyways, and to reduce the burden on State and tribal wildlife agencies that are required to submit annual light goose harvest reports to us. This action will eliminate reporting requirements that we believe to be unnecessary and will relieve requirements on individuals, States, and tribes.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), change the regulations governing control of depredating blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies. The yellow-billed magpie ( Pica nuttalli ) is endemic to California and has suffered substantial population declines. It is a species of conservation concern. We remove the species from the depredation order. A depredation permit will be necessary to control the species. We also narrow the application of the regulation from protection of any wildlife to protection of species recognized by the Federal Government, a State, or a Tribe as an endangered, threatened, or candidate species, or a species of special concern. We add conditions for live trapping, which are new to the regulation. Finally, we refine the reporting requirement to gather data more useful in assessing actions under the order.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are updating the addresses of our headquarters offices in our regulations. The Service will relocate its headquarters offices on July 28, 2014. We are taking this action to ensure regulated entities and the general public have accurate contact information for the Service's offices.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), revise the two depredation orders for double-crested cormorants ( Phalacrocorax auritus, DCCOs). We extend the expiration dates for the orders for 5 years to allow State and Tribal resource management agencies to continue to manage DCCO problems and gather data on the effects of DCCO control actions. We have prepared a final environmental assessment (FEA) to analyze the environmental impacts associated with this extension. We change the annual reporting date for the depredation order to protect public resources, remove requirements for DCCO control activities around bald eagles and bald eagle nests for both orders, and require use of the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for both orders. We also add a requirement for the use of nontoxic rifle bullets for anyone using centerfire rifles to control DCCOs under the orders, beginning on January 1, 2017.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose revisions to the two existing depredation orders for double-crested cormorants ( Phalacrocorax auritus ) at 50 CFR 21.47 and 21.48. We propose to extend the expiration dates from these depredation orders for 5 years. We do so to allow State and tribal resource management agencies to continue to manage double-crested cormorant problems under the terms and conditions of the depredation orders and gather data on the effects of double-crested cormorant control actions. If we do not extend these depredation orders, any action to control depredating double-crested cormorants after June 30, 2014, will require a permit. We have prepared a draft environmental assessment (DEA) to analyze the environmental impacts associated with this extension. Additionally, we propose to change the annual reporting date for the depredation order to protect public resources (50 CFR 21.48), to remove requirements for cormorant control activities around bald eagles and bald eagle nests for both depredation orders, and to recommend use of the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for both depredation orders. We invite the public to comment on the DEA and our proposed revisions to the regulations.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to reduce the information collection requirements for participants in the light goose conservation order, which authorizes methods of take to increase harvest of certain populations of light geese in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways, and to reduce the burden on State and tribal wildlife agencies that are required to submit annual light goose harvest reports to the Service. We are taking this action to eliminate information collection and reporting requirements that we believe to be unnecessary. This action would relieve requirements on certain individuals, States, and tribes.

The States of Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have requested that we delegate permitting for falconry to the State, as provided under our regulations. We have reviewed regulations and supporting materials provided by these States, and have concluded that their regulations comply with the Federal regulations. We change the falconry regulations accordingly. We make additional changes to the regulations to remove parts that will no longer be relevant after December 31, 2013, and, in one case, to remove contradictory language, and to correct errors.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are updating the names and addresses of our regional offices in our regulations at title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We are also making other revisions to our regulations, such as updating the names and phone numbers of certain other Service offices. We are taking these actions to ensure regulated entities and the general public have accurate contact information for the Service's offices.

The States of Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and North Dakota have requested that we delegate permitting for falconry to the State, as provided under our regulations. We have reviewed regulations and supporting materials provided by these States, and have concluded that their regulations comply with the Federal regulations. We change the falconry regulations accordingly.