[Federal Register: August 11, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 47603-47604]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au03-85]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
RIN 1018-AI39
Notice of Availability; Final Environmental Impact Statement on
Double-Crested Cormorant Management
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement
on double-crested cormorant management.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the availability of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on double-crested cormorant
management. The FEIS follows publication of a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) and a proposed rule, each of which had
extensive public comment periods. The FEIS analyzes the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts related to double-crested cormorant
management and provides the public with responses to comments received
on the DEIS.
DATES: The period of availability for public review for the FEIS ends
30 days following publication of the EPA notice of availability in the
Federal Register. After that date, we will publish a final rule and
Record of Decision.
ADDRESSES: You can obtain a copy of the FEIS by writing to the Division
of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107,
Arlington, VA 22203; by emailing us at cormorants@fws.gov; or by
calling us at 703/358-1714. We will also post the FEIS on our Web site
at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/cormorant/cormorant.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, at 703/358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 8, 1999, we published a notice
in the Federal Register (64 FR 60826) announcing our intent to prepare,
in cooperation with the Wildlife Services program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS/WS), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address
``impacts caused by population and range expansion of the double-
crested cormorant [DCCO] in the contiguous United States.'' The notice
of intent also marked the beginning of a public scoping period. The
purpose of scoping, which included 12 public meetings, was to identify
significant issues to be addressed in the EIS. More than 900 people
attended the public scoping meetings, with 239 providing oral comments,
and over 1,450 people submitted written comments. Comments fell into
two categories: issues of concern and suggested management options.
Issues of concern included impacts on sport fishing, local economies,
aquaculture/commercial fishing, bird species, ecological balance,
vegetation, human health and safety, and private property. Management
options that were suggested included controlling DCCO populations, not
managing DCCOs, removing DCCOs from the protection of the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, hunting, focusing on non-lethal control, allowing
State management of DCCOs, changing the permit policy, oiling eggs,
giving APHIS/WS more authority, basing decisions on the best science,
using population objectives, and increasing education efforts. The
scoping period ended on June 16, 2000.
On December 3, 2001, we published a notice in the Federal Register
announcing the availability of the DEIS for public review (66 FR
60218). This was followed by a 100-day public comment period, which
included 10 public meetings. The DEIS analyzed the predicted
environmental impacts of six management alternatives for addressing
problems associated with increasing DCCO populations. These management
alternatives were: (1) No Action, or continue current cormorant
management practices (Alternative A); (2) implement only nonlethal
management techniques (Alternative B); (3) expand current cormorant
damage management practices (Alternative C); (4) establish a new
depredation order to address public resource conflicts (Alternative D
-- proposed action); (5) reduce regional cormorant populations
(Alternative E); and (6) establish frameworks for a cormorant hunting
season (Alternative F). The biological and socioeconomic resource
categories evaluated in relation to each alternative included DCCO
populations, fish, other birds, vegetation, federally listed threatened
and endangered species, water quality and human health, economic
impacts (aquaculture and recreational fishing economies), fish
hatcheries and environmental justice, property losses, and existence
and aesthetic values.
We received 994 letters, faxes, and email messages commenting on
the DEIS. Of the 994 letters received, 764 of these stated a preference
for a specific alternative. These results were: 32.2 percent chose
Alternative D (proposed action) as the best alternative; 25.8 percent
chose Alternative E (population reduction); 16.9 percent chose
Alternative A (No Action); 11.8 percent chose Alternative F (hunting);
11.8 percent chose Alternative B (non-lethal methods); and <1 percent
chose Alternative C (increased local damage control). Our responses to
significant comments can be found in Chapter 7 of the FEIS.
In response to concerns about the public resource depredation order
being too broad in scope, we made two changes to the order which were
subsequently described in a proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on March 17, 2003 (68 FR 12653). These changes limit the
public resource depredation order to 24 States (rather than the 48
originally proposed in the DEIS) and limit its applicability to land
and freshwater (not saltwater). The 24 States were chosen based on
locations of significant numbers of wintering, migrating, or breeding
birds from the Interior and Southern DCCO populations. Saltwater areas
were excluded because impacts have not been documented there.
Additionally, we changed the order so that it applied only to State
fish and wildlife agencies, federally recognized Tribes, and APHIS/WS,
and we expanded allowable control techniques to include egg oiling, egg
and nest destruction, cervical dislocation, shooting, and
CO2 asphyxiation. APHIS/WS was added since it is the chief
Federal wildlife damage control agency and has considerable expertise
in managing DCCOs. Control techniques were selected to include all
effective and humane techniques. As stated in the proposed rule, these
modifications do not constitute significant changes to the DEIS
analysis and are addressed, as needed, in the FEIS.
Following publication of the proposed rule, the public had 60 days
to provide comments. This comment period led to additional
modifications to the proposed action, including the addition
[[Page 47604]]
of another month for allowing roost control under the aquaculture
depredation order (October to April). In compliance with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act, we completed informal consultation and,
subsequently, added conservation measures to protect bald eagles, wood
storks, piping plovers, and interior least terns. These changes are
considered in the FEIS analysis and will be discussed in greater detail
in the final rule.
Like the DEIS, the FEIS analyzed the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts we predict would be associated with
six DCCO management alternatives. The first chart below summarizes the
impacts of DCCOs under the No Action alternative (i.e., the status
quo), as detailed in the FEIS. The second chart below summarizes
effects on the FEIS resource categories that we predicted would occur
as a result of implementing the proposed action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A: no action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other bird populations....... Suspected conflicts and in some cases
confirmed conflicts associated with
habitat destruction and nest site
competition; significance localized.
Fish......................... Suspected and in some cases confirmed
conflicts; significance localized.
Vegetation/habitat........... Destruction of vegetation confirmed;
significance localized.
Threatened and endangered Suspected but not confirmed conflicts
species. with Atlantic salmon and various Pacific
salmonids; very likely, however, that
other factors are more important than
DCCOs in the decline of salmon.
Water quality and human Accused of being a source of groundwater
health. contamination but this is not confirmed;
can cause direct, open water
contamination.
Aquaculture.................. Confirmed economic impacts on aquaculture
production.
Recreational fishing Correlative evidence that DCCOs are a
economies. factor behind economic declines in
communities dependent on recreational
fishing; not confirmed.
Fish hatcheries and justice.. Confirmed depredation of hatchery stock
with significance localized; effect on
ability to provide hatchery fish to low-
income groups not confirmed.
Property losses.............. Confirmed conflicts with some property
interests; significance localized.
Existence and aesthetic Effect on values differs with
values. perspective; DCCOs may appeal to some
individual's sense of aesthetics, while
not appealing to others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed action alternative D: public
resource depredation order
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCCO populations.......................... No significant impact to
regional or continental
populations; estimated
annual take of 159,635.
Other bird populations.................... Local disturbances likely,
but can be managed to avoid
significant impacts; will
help overall.
Fish...................................... Will help reduce predation
in localized situations.
Vegetation/habitat........................ Will help reduce impacts in
localized situations.
Threatened and endangered species......... No adverse impacts with
implementation of
conservation measures.
Water quality and human health............ Will help reduce impacts in
localized situations
Aquaculture............................... Will help reduce
depredation.
Recreational fishing economies............ Not likely to benefit.
Fish hatcheries and environmental justice. Will help reduce
depredation.
Property losses........................... Could help to indirectly
reduce losses.
Existence and aesthetic values............ Effects on values differs
with perspective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 1, 2003.
Steve Williams,
Director.
[FR Doc. 03-20376 Filed 8-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P