PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the EAGLE RULE REVISION
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the EAGLE RULE REVISION U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Public Comment Periods: June 23, 2014–September 22, 2014; May 4, 2016–July 5, 2016 Designation: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Preferred Alternative: Alternative 5: Flyway EMUs, Conservative Take Abstract: This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential impacts to the human environment that may result from implementation of proposed revisions by the Service to several eagle permit regulations that authorize take of bald and golden eagles (“eagles”) and eagle nests pursuant to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act; 16 USC 668–668d). The preferred alternative would: (1) establish limits on the amount of eagle take that the Service could authorize under permits to levels that were analyzed and shown to be compatible with maintaining stable or increasing eagle populations with risk managed in favor of being protective of eagle populations; (2) set the four migratory bird flyways (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) as discrete eagle management units (EMUs) within which the numerical take limits and the objective of population stability would apply; (3) establish a standard process for evaluating the impacts of take at the finer scale of local eagle populations with the objective of ensuring authorized take does not place the persistence of these populations at risk of extirpation; (4) require that any take of eagles be minimized to the maximum degree practicable; (5) establish a maximum duration for permits of 30 years, but with permit-take limits set, evaluated, and updated in five-year increments; and (6) set standards and objectives for compensatory mitigation that will be required when authorized take exceeds the EMU and, potentially, local eagle population take limits. Contact: Eliza Savage, Eagle Rule Revision Project Manager, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 Eagle Rule Revision Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement SUMMARY The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) prohibits take of bald eagles and golden eagles except pursuant to federal regulations. Eagle incidental take permit regulations provide an opportunity to secure avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures to reduce and offset detrimental impacts to eagles while providing certainty to project proponents and other persons engaged in activities that result in incidental take of bald and golden eagles. Bald eagle populations continue to expand throughout their United States (U.S.) range. Golden eagles in the coterminous U.S. may be declining toward a lower population size. Unauthorized sources of human-caused mortality may be a significant factor affecting population trends and size for golden eagles. This programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) analyzes five alternatives (including the preferred alternative) for updating eagle management objectives and permit regulations that will provide protection to eagles while streamlining regulatory compliance for those engaged in activities that may incidentally take eagles. There are five chapters that comprise the critical components of the PEIS. Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Agency Action provides background and describes the purpose and need for the action, the NEPA process, the legal authorities, decisions to be made, and the organization of the PEIS. Chapter 2, Alternatives describes the five alternatives the Service considered: ● (Alternative 1, No Action) Continue implementation of current management practices and eagle permit regulations. ● Management common to all Action Alternatives includes revisions to eagle incidental take permitting regulations, consisting of: modified definitions, mitigation standards, issuance criteria, permit fees and conditions. All the Action Alternatives also include some revisions to eagle nest take regulations, and allow for permits to be issued for take of golden eagles east of the 100th meridian. ● (Alternative 2, Current EMUs, Liberal Take) Eagle populations would be managed using the current eagle management units (EMUs). EMUs for the bald eagle would be in a configuration that roughly approximates Service regions. EMUs for the golden eagle would be based on Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) west of the 100th meridian, with BCRs east of the 100th meridian combined into one EMU. Unmitigated take limits would be set at 0% for golden eagles and 8% of populations for bald eagles in most EMUs, with lower rates proposed in the Southwest (4.5%) and Alaska (0.7%). Compensatory mitigation would be required for, and limited to, permits that would exceed EMU take limits. Compensatory mitigation for take above EMU take limits would be offset at a 1:1 ratio for bald and golden eagles. Summary i Eagle Rule Revision Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ● (Alternative 3, Current EMUs, Conservative Take) EMUs would be the same as in Alternative 2. Unmitigated take limits would be set at 0% for golden eagles and 6% of populations for bald eagles in most EMUs, with lower rates proposed in the Southwest (3.8%) and Alaska (0.8%). Incidental take permits could be issued for up to 30 years, with permit reviews every five years. Compensatory mitigation designed to offset impacts at a 1:1 ratio would be required for any permitted take that exceeds EMU take limits. Separate and distinct from compensatory mitigation to offset take above the EMU take limit, a minimum level of compensatory mitigation would be required for each take permit. A permit administration fee for longer-term permits would be assessed at $15,000 every five years to support the Service’s ability to conduct the five- year evaluations. ● (Alternative 4, Flyway EMUs, Liberal Take) EMUs for bald eagles would be aligned with the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific flyways used by the Service and its partner agencies to manage other species of birds, with the Pacific Flyway divided into three EMUs: southwest, mid-latitude, and Alaska. EMUs for golden eagles would also follow the flyways, with the Mississippi and Atlantic flyways combined into one EMU. Unmitigated take limits would be set at 0% for golden eagles and 8% of populations for bald eagles in most EMUs, with lower rates proposed in the Southwest (4.5%) and Alaska (0.7%). The maximum duration of an incidental take permit would remain at five years. The local area population (LAP) cumulative effects analysis would be incorporated into the regulations. Compensatory mitigation would be required for all permits that exceed EMU take limits and for some permits that exceed LAP take limits; compensatory mitigation would be required if necessary for the permit to be compatible with the preservation of eagles, and compensatory mitigation would be at a 1:1 ratio. The definition of “compatible with the preservation of eagles” would be modified to incorporate greater protection at more local scales. ● (Alternative 5, Flyway EMUs, Conservative Take—Preferred Alternative) EMUs for the bald eagle would coincide with the flyways with the same modification as in Alternative 4. Unmitigated take limits would be set at 0% for golden eagles and 6% of populations for bald eagles in most EMUs, with lower rates proposed in the Southwest (3.8%). Incidental take permits could be issued for up to 30 years, with permit reviews every five years. Compensatory mitigation would be required for permits that exceed EMU take limits, and some permits that exceed LAP take limits; compensatory mitigation would also be required if necessary for the permit to be compatible with the preservation of eagles. Compensatory mitigation would be designed to offset take at a ratio of 1:1 for bald eagles and 1.2:1 for golden eagles for take that exceeds EMU take limits. The definition of “compatible with the preservation of eagles” would be modified to incorporate greater protection at more local scales. The LAP cumulative effects analysis would be incorporated into the regulations. The permit administration fee to support the Service’s ability to conduct the five-year evaluations for longer-term permits Summary ii Eagle Rule Revision Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement would be assessed at $8,000 every five years (changed from $15,000 in the May 6, 2016 proposed rule). Chapter 2, Alternatives also describes alternatives that the Service considered but dismissed from a detailed analysis. Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences analyzes the predicted impacts of each alternative on the environmental categories that could be affected by the proposed action: bald eagles, golden eagles, eagle habitat, migratory birds, other permitted take of eagles, cultural and religious values and resources, socioeconomic resources, and the Earth’s climate. The environmental analysis in Chapter 3 indicates that Alternative 5, the PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, (1) will not have a significant impact on the growth of bald eagle populations; (2) will add protection for local populations of both species due to the revised preservation standard and incorporation of the LAP cumulative effects analysis; (3) will help prevent or arrest a decline in current golden eagle populations and may even reverse possible negative population trends caused by unauthorized human-caused take; (4) will have little impact to eagle habitat, with possibly more beneficial effects from the