14036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices 

Inc. (ACTP) Loxahatchee, FL; PRT– 

62567A 

The applicant requests a permit to 

export 15 live, captive-born St. Vincent 

parrots (Amazona guildingii) to 

Germany, for the purpose of 

enhancement of the survival of the 

species. 

Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Billings, MT; PRT–59485A 

The applicant requests a permit to 

export 22 preserved juvenile pallid 

sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 

hatched at the Gavins Point National 

Fish Hatchery in Yankton, SD, for the 

purpose of scientific research. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: Houston Zoo, Inc., Houston, 

TX; PRT–64106A 

The applicant requests a permit to 

export two live, captive-born redcrowned cranes (Grus japonensis) to 

Chile, for the purpose of enhancement 

of the survival of the species. 

Applicant: Adalgisa Caccone, Yale 

University, New Haven, CT; PRT– 

209142 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import biological samples of Galapagos 

giant tortoises (Geochelone nigra) from 

Galapagos, Ecuador, for the purpose of 

enhancement of the survival of the 

species through scientific research. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: Morani River Ranch, Uvalde, 

TX; PRT–46687A 

The applicant requests amendment of 

their captive-bred wildlife registration 

under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add scimitarhorned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax 

(Addax nasomaculatus), and dama 

gazelle (Nanger dama) to enhance their 

propagation or survival. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: Morani River Ranch, Uvalde, 

TX; PRT–49112A 

The applicant requests amendment of 

their permit authorizing interstate and 

foreign commerce, export, and cull to 

include scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx 

dammah), addax (Addax 

nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle 

(Nanger dama) from the captive herds 

maintained at their facility, for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: Donald Henderson, 

Ijamsville, MD; PRT–061184 

The applicant requests renewal of 

their captive-bred wildlife registration 

under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated 

tortoise (Astrochelys radiata), to 

enhance their propagation or survival. 

This notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: Priour Brothers Ranch, 

Ingram, TX; PRT–672849 

The applicant requests amendment of 

their captive-bred wildlife registration 

under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add scimitarhorned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax 

(Addax nasomaculatus), and dama 

gazelle (Nanger dama) to enhance their 

propagation or survival. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: Priour Brothers Ranch, 

Ingram, TX; PRT–707102 

The applicant requests amendment of 

their permit authorizing interstate and 

foreign commerce, export, and cull, to 

include scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx 

dammah,), and addax (Addax 

nasomaculatus) from the captive herds 

maintained at their facility, for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: H. Yturria Land and Cattle 

Co., Brownsville, TX; PRT–179119 

The applicant requests amendment of 

their captive-bred wildlife registration 

under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add scimitarhorned oryx (Oryx dammah), and addax 

(Addax nasomaculatus), to enhance 

their propagation or survival. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Applicant: H. Yturria Land and Cattle 

Co., Brownsville, TX; PRT–179117 

The applicant requests amendment of 

their permit authorizing interstate and 

foreign commerce, export, and cull to 

include scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx 

dammah), and addax (Addax 

nasomaculatus) from the captive herds 

maintained at their facility, for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: Michale Soupios, East 

Northport, NY; PRT–042637 

The applicant requests renewal of 

their captive-bred wildlife registration 

under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for Galapagos 

tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra), to enhance 

their propagation or survival. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 5- 

year period. 

Multiple Applicants 

The following applicants each request 

a permit to import the sport-hunted 

trophy of one male bontebok 

(Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled 

from a captive herd maintained under 

the management program of the 

Republic of South Africa, for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. 

Applicant: John Lattimore, Bells, TX; 

PRT–66322A 

Applicant: Robert Shemonski, 

Perkiomenville, PA; PRT–63858A 

Applicant: Don Adams, Bloomington, 

IN; PRT–61190A 

Brenda Tapia, 

Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch 

of Permits, Division of Management 

Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5643 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R1–ES–2011– 

N259;FXES11130100000D2–123– 

FF01E00000] 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for Experimental Removal of Barred 

Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern 

Spotted Owls 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; 

announcement of public meetings; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

availability of a draft environmental 

impact statement for experimental 

removal of barred owls to benefit 

threatened northern spotted owls. The 

barred owl, a species recently 

established in western North America, 

is displacing the northern spotted owl 

and threatening its viability. The draft 

environmental impact statement 

analyzes a no-action alternative and 

seven action alternatives to 

experimentally determine if removing 

barred owls will benefit northern 

spotted owl populations and to inform 

decisions on whether to move forward 

with future management of barred owls. 

The action alternatives vary by the 

number and location of study areas, the 

type of experimental design, duration of 

study, and method of barred owl 

removal. We also announce plans for 

public meetings and the opening of a 

public comment period on the draft 

environmental impact statement. All 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices 14037 

interested parties are invited to provide 

information, data, comments or 

suggestions. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive comments before close of 

business (4:30 p.m.) on or before June 6, 

2012. We will hold at least two public 

meetings within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. We will announce 

meeting locations and times in local 

newspapers and on the Internet at: 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo. 

ADDRESSES: To request further 

information, obtain a copy of the draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS), 

or submit or view written comments, 

please use one of the following methods 

and clearly indicate that your request or 

comment is in reference to the Barred 

Owl EIS: 

• Email: barredowlEIS@fws.gov. 

• U.S. Mail: Paul Henson, State 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, 

Portland, OR 97266. 

• In-Person Drop-off of Comments: 

Comments can be delivered in person to 

the above address during regular 

business hours (Monday through Friday, 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). 

• Viewing Comments and Supporting 

Materials, or Picking Up a Copy of the 

Draft EIS: Call 503–231–6179 to make 

an appointment to view received 

comments or pick up a copy of the draft 

EIS at the above address. 

• Internet: The draft EIS is available 

for review and downloading at http:// 

www.fws.gov/oregonfwo. 

• Fax: Paul Henson, 503–231–6195, 

Attn.: Barred Owl EIS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office, at 503–231–6179. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf, please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

announce the availability of a draft 

environmental impact statement for 

experimental removal of barred owls to 

benefit threatened northern spotted 

owls. We are publishing this notice in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) 

and its implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 1506.6. This continues the public 

involvement process for our draft EIS, 

which was initiated through a notice of 

intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 

65546). 

The draft EIS evaluates the impacts of 

seven action alternatives and a noaction alternative related to: (1) Federal 

involvement in barred owl removal 

experiments, and (2) the possible 

issuance of one or more scientific 

collecting permits under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–712; 

MBTA) for lethal and non-lethal take of 

barred owls. 

The northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) is listed as 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 

Act). Competition from barred owls 

(Strix varia) was identified as one of the 

main threats to the northern spotted owl 

in our 2011 Revised Northern Spotted 

Owl Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) 

(USFWS 2011, p. III–62). To address 

this threat, the Recovery Plan 

recommended designing and 

implementing large-scale controlled 

experiments to assess the effects of 

barred owl removal on spotted owl site 

occupancy, reproduction, and survival 

(USFWS 2011, p. III–65). The draft EIS 

analyzes seven action alternatives and a 

no-action alternative for conducting 

experimental removal of barred owls 

and assessing the effects on spotted owl 

populations in specific study areas 

within the range of the northern spotted 

owl. Action areas may include from one 

to several study areas in western 

Washington, western Oregon, and 

northwestern California. The action 

alternatives vary by the number and 

location of study areas, the type of 

experimental design, duration of the 

study, and the method of barred owl 

removal. 

Background 

The Service listed the northern 

spotted owl as a threatened species 

under the Act in 1990, based primarily 

on habitat loss and degradation (55 FR 

26114). As a result, conservation efforts 

for the northern spotted owl have been 

largely focused on habitat protection. 

While our listing rule noted that the 

long-term impact of barred owls on the 

spotted owl was of considerable 

concern, the scope and severity of this 

threat was largely unknown at that time 

(55 FR 26114, p. 26190). The Recovery 

Plan summarized information available 

since our listing rule and found that 

competition from barred owls poses a 

significant and immediate threat to the 

northern spotted owl throughout its 

range (USFWS 2011, pp. B–10 through 

B–12). 

Historically, the barred owl and 

northern spotted owl did not co-occur. 

In the past century, barred owls have 

expanded their range westward, 

reaching the range of the northern 

spotted owl in British Columbia by 

about 1959. Barred owl populations 

have continued to expand southward 

within the range of the northern spotted 

owl, and were first documented in 

Washington and Oregon in the early 

1970s, and in California in 1976 

(Livezey et al. 2007, p. 49; Sharp 1989, 

p. 179). The population of barred owls 

behind the expansion front continues to 

increase, and they now outnumber 

spotted owls in many portions of the 

northern spotted owl’s range (Pearson 

and Livezey 2003, p. 272). 

There is strong evidence to indicate 

that barred owls are negatively affecting 

northern spotted owl populations. 

Barred owls displace spotted owls from 

high-quality habitat (Kelley et al. 2003, 

p. 51; Pearson and Livezey 2003, p. 274; 

Courtney et al., pp. 7–27 through 7–31; 

Gremel 2005, pp. 9, 11, 17; Hamer et al. 

2007, p. 764; Dugger et al. 2011, pp. 

2464–1466), reducing their survival and 

reproduction (Olson et al. 2004, p. 1048; 

Anthony et al. 2006, p. 32; Forsman et 

al. 2011, pp. 41–43, 69–70). In addition, 

barred owls may physically attack 

spotted owls (Gutierrez et al. 2007, p. 

187). These effects may help explain 

declines in northern spotted owl 

territory occupancy associated with 

barred owls in Oregon, and reduced 

northern spotted owl survivorship and 

sharp population declines in 

Washington (e.g., in northern 

Washington, spotted owl populations 

declined by as much as 55 percent 

between 1996 and 2006) (Anthony et al. 

2006, pp. 21, 30, 32; Forsman et al. 

2011, pp. 43–47, 65–66)). Without 

management intervention, it is 

reasonable to expect that competition 

from barred owls may cause extirpation 

of the northern spotted owl from all or 

a substantial portion of its historical 

range, reducing its potential for 

recovery. 

We are proposing to conduct 

experiments to determine if removal of 

barred owls would increase site 

occupancy, survival, and reproduction, 

and improve population trends of 

northern spotted owls. Support for these 

experiments has been expressed in the 

scientific community. For example, 

Gutierrez et al. (2007, p. 191) notes, 

‘‘[c]orrectly executed removal 

experiments should provide an 

unambiguous result regarding the effect 

of barred owls on spotted owl 

population declines.’’ The Wildlife 

Society sent a letter to the Director of 

the Service stating, ‘‘experiments to 

remove and control barred owls * * * 

[are] appropriate’’ (The Wildlife Society 

2008, p. 11). Buchanan et al. (2007, p. 

683) state, ‘‘[d]espite the potential for 

confounding effects, appropriately 

designed removal experiments should 

provide the strongest inference 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices 

regarding the magnitude of the Barred 

Owl’s effect on Spotted Owls.’’ 

The methods for, and the effects of, 

removing barred owls from northern 

spotted owl habitat are not fully 

understood. Three publications, 

Buchanan et al. (2007, entire), Livezey 

et al. (2007, entire), and Johnson et al. 

(2008, entire), analyze and discuss 

various methods of barred owl control. 

The Service considered the information 

in these documents as well as the 

information gathered in the scoping 

process in developing alternatives for 

barred owl removal. 

Purpose and Need for the Action 

The need for the action is that we lack 

desired information to: 

• Determine the response of northern 

spotted owl occupancy, survival, 

reproduction, and population trend to 

barred owl removal; 

• Evaluate whether barred owls can 

be effectively removed from an area and 

how much follow-up effort is required 

to maintain low population levels of 

barred owls; 

• Determine the cost of removal in 

different types of forested landscapes to 

inform future management decisions; 

and 

• Help inform timely decisions on 

whether to move forward with future 

barred owl management. 

The purpose of the proposed action is 

to contribute to fulfilling the intent of 

the Act by rapidly implementing 

experimental research necessary for 

conservation of the northern spotted 

owl in accordance with Recovery Action 

29 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, 

p. III–65). More specifically, the purpose 

of the proposed action is to: 

• Obtain information regarding the 

effects of barred owls on northern 

spotted owl vital rates of occupancy, 

survival, reproduction, and population 

trend through experimental removal; 

• Determine the feasibility of 

removing barred owls from an area and 

the amount of effort required to 

maintain reduced barred owl population 

levels for the study period; 

• Estimate the cost of barred owl 

removal in different forested 

landscapes; and 

• Develop the information necessary 

to make a future decision about the 

management of barred owls as 

expeditiously as possible. 

Alternatives 

The draft EIS describes and analyzes 

seven action alternatives and a noaction alternative. The action 

alternatives were developed to meet the 

purposes and need for the proposed 

action, with consideration given to 

comments received during public 

scoping. We received 54 written 

comments from 29 different 

organizations (including environmental, 

conservation, animal welfare, and 

industry groups; Tribes; professional 

societies; government agencies; and 

zoological parks) and 25 individuals. 

The potential impacts of the 

alternatives are assessed in the draft EIS. 

The alternatives vary by the number and 

location of study areas, the method of 

barred owl removal (lethal, or a 

combination of lethal and non-lethal), 

and the type of study (demography vs. 

occupancy). 

All action alternatives are based on a 

simple treatment and control study 

design. Under this approach, study 

areas are divided into two comparable 

segments. Barred owls are removed from 

the treatment area but not from the 

control area. Spotted owl populations 

are measured using the same 

methodology on both areas, and the 

population measures (occupancy, 

survival, reproduction, and population 

trend) are compared between the control 

and treatment areas. 

Experiments would occur over a 

period of 3–10 years, varying by 

alternative. The area affected by the 

action alternatives ranges from 

approximately 126,000 to 2,906,800 

acres (51,000 to 1,176,000 hectares), or 

from 0.2 to 5.1 percent of the northern 

spotted owl’s range. A brief description 

of each alternative follows. 

Under the No-action Alternative, the 

Service would not conduct 

experimental removal of barred owls, 

thus not implementing one of the 

Recovery Actions designated in the 

Revised Recovery Plan for the northern 

spotted owl (USFWS 2001, p. III–65). 

Data that would inform future barred 

owl management strategies would not 

be gathered. 

Alternative 1 would consist of a 

demography study in a single study 

area. The study area would be located 

within an existing spotted owl 

demography study area where long-term 

monitoring of northern spotted owl 

populations has occurred (Lint et al. 

1999, p. 17; Lint 2005, p. 7). Only lethal 

removal would be applied in this 

alternative. 

Alternative 2 would consist of a 

demography study in three study areas, 

which would be located within existing 

spotted owl demography study areas 

and distributed across the range of the 

northern spotted owl. Removal would 

include a combination of lethal and 

non-lethal methods. 

Alternative 3 entails a demography 

study in two study areas. Barred owl 

removal would occur outside of existing 

spotted owl demography study areas, 

but within areas that have adequate data 

to conduct pre-removal demography 

analyses. A combination of lethal and 

non-lethal removal methods would be 

used. 

Alternative 4 includes two 

subalternatives, 4a and 4b. Both 

subalternatives entail a demography 

study in two study areas outside 

existing spotted owl demography study 

areas. Both subalternatives use a 

combination of lethal and non-lethal 

methods. Subalternatives 4a and 4b 

differ in that 4a delays barred owl 

removal to collect pre-treatment data for 

comparison with treatment data, 

whereas 4b starts removal immediately 

and foregoes pre-treatment data 

collection. 

Alternative 5 employs an occupancy 

study approach in three study areas. 

The portion of the study areas where 

barred owls would be removed is 

outside existing spotted owl 

demography study areas. Only lethal 

removal would be applied in this 

alternative. 

Alternative 6 includes two 

subalternatives, 6a and 6b. Both 

subalternatives entail an occupancy 

study in three study areas. The portion 

of these study areas where barred owls 

would be removed is outside existing 

spotted owl demography study areas. 

Both subalternatives use a combination 

of lethal and non-lethal methods. 

Subalternatives 6a and 6b differ in that 

6a delays removal to collect pretreatment data for comparison with 

treatment data, whereas 6b starts 

removal immediately and foregoes pretreatment data collection. 

Alternative 7 includes a combination 

of demography and occupancy analyses 

across 11 study areas, some of which 

have current data while others do not. 

Three existing spotted owl demographic 

study areas would be included within 

these study areas. A combination of 

lethal and non-lethal methods would be 

used. 

Public Availability of the Draft EIS 

The draft EIS is available for viewing 

and downloading on our web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo. 

Unbound paper copies and digital 

copies on compact disk are available 

upon request. Copies of the draft EIS 

may also be picked up in person, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours (9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) (see 

ADDRESSES section to request a copy or 

schedule a document pick-up time). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2012 / Notices 14039 

Next Steps 

After this comment period ends, we 

will analyze comments and address 

them in a final EIS. 

Public Comments 

We request data, comments, new 

information, or suggestions from all 

interested parties. We will consider 

these comments in developing the final 

EIS. We particularly seek comments on 

the following: 

• The barred owl and its population 

status and trend; 

• The northern spotted owl and its 

population status and trend; 

• Ongoing northern spotted owl 

demography studies; 

• Effects of the proposed removal 

experiment on other wildlife species; 

• Social and human value/ethics, 

including the intrinsic value of spotted 

and barred owls and human culpability 

in the presence of barred owls in the 

West; 

• Economic effects of the alternatives; 

• Cultural resources that may be 

affected by the alternatives; 

• Effects of the alternatives on visitor 

use and recreation, and visitor 

experience, especially in National Parks 

and Recreation Areas and other 

recreation sites; and 

• Effects of the alternatives on 

Wilderness Areas and wilderness 

attributes. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials by one of the methods listed 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the draft EIS, will be 

available for public inspection by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at our office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

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 comments, 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 us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Public Meetings 

We will hold at least two public 

meetings at locations within the range of 

the northern spotted owl (western 

Washington, western Oregon, and 

northwestern California). We will 

announce exact meeting locations and 

times in local newspapers and on the 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

oregonfwo. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this notice is available upon request 

from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authority 

We provide this notice under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), and its implementing regulations 

in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. We also publish 

this notice under authority of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 

703–712) and its specific implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 10.13 and 50 CFR 

21.23. 

Dated: January 11, 2012. 

Theresa E. Rabot, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5139 Filed 3–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R3–ES–2012–N052: 

FXES11130300000F3–123–FF03E00000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Permit Applications 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of permit 

applications; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, invite the public to 

comment on the following applications 

to conduct certain activities with 

endangered species. With some 

exceptions, the Endangered Species Act 

(Act) prohibits activities with 

endangered and threatened species 

unless a Federal permit allows such 

activity. The Act requires that we invite 

public comment before issuing these 

permits. 

DATES: We must receive any written 

comments on or before April 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments by 

U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: 

Lisa Mandell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ecological Services, 5600 

American Blvd. West, Suite 990, 

Bloomington, MN 55437–1458; or by 

electronic mail to permitsR3ES@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Mandell, (612) 713–5343. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We invite public comment on the 

following permit applications for certain 

activities with endangered species 

authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and our 

regulations governing the taking of 

endangered species in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17. 

Submit your written data, comments, or 

request for a copy of the complete 

application to the address shown in 

ADDRESSES. 

Permit Applications 

Permit Application Number: TE06778A 

Applicant: USDA Forest Service, 

Shawnee National Forest (Rod 

McClanahan, P.I.), Vienna, IL. 

The applicant requests a permit 

renewal/amendment to take (capture 

and release; salvage dead specimens) 

Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and Gray 

bats (Myotis grisescens) on federal lands 

in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. 

Proposed activities are aimed at 

enhancement of survival of the species 

in the wild. 

Permit Application Number: TE207526 

Applicant: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Columbia Environmental Research 

Center (Mark Wildhaber, P.I.), 

Columbia, MO. 

The applicant requests a permit 

renewal/amendment to take Pallid 

Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), 

Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka), and 

Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus). 

Proposed activities include captive 

propagation, reintroduction, scientific 

study, field assessments, and other 

recovery activities involving capture, 

handling, and holding of fish in the 

laboratory (hatchery) and in the wild. 

Proposed field activities would occur in 

the Missouri River, its tributaries, the 

Middle Mississippi River, Neosho River 

(KS) and Cottonwood River (KS). 

Permit Application Number: TE06809A 

Applicant: USDA Forest Service, North 

Central Research Station (Sybill 

Amelon, P.I.), Columbia, MO. 

The applicant requests a permit 

renewal to take Indiana bats, gray bats, 

and Ozark big-eared bats (Corynorhinus 

townsendii ingens) throughout the range 

of the species in Alabama, Arkansas, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South 

Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES