Environmental Assessment
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REDUCING BIRD DAMAGE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS In cooperation with: United States Department of Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program Region 5 Prepared by: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................... 23 1.5 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 24 1.6 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS DOCUMENT TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS . 26 1.7 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 27 1.8 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 37 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH BIRD DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................... 39 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................... 43 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 48 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 52 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR BIRD DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ............ 54 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...... 55 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................. 57 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS .............................................................................. 110 5.2 LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED ............................................................................................ 110 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................... 111 APPENDIX B METHODS AVAILABLE FOR USE OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE WS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 132 APPENDIX C BIRD SPECIES EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......... 141 APPENDIX D THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT ARE FEDERALLY LISTED IN THE STATE ............................................................................................... 142 APPENDIX E MDFW LISTING OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE SPECIES IN MASSACHUSETTS ................................................................................. 143 2 ACRONYMS APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association BBS Breeding Bird Survey BCR Bird Conservation Region BDM Bird Damage Management CBC Christmas Bird Count CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FDA Food and Drug Administration FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDAR Massachusetts Department of Agriculture Resources MDFG Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game MDFW Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife MDPH Massachusetts Department of Public Health MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAS National Audubon Society NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NWRC National Wildlife Research Center ROD Record of Decision SOP Standard Operating Procedure T&E Threatened and Endangered USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDI U.S. Department of Interior USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WCA Waterbird Conservation for the Americas WS Wildlife Services 3 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION Across the United States, wildlife habitat has been substantially changed as human populations expand and land is used for human needs. These human uses and needs often compete with the needs of wildlife which increases the potential for conflicting human/wildlife interactions. This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential environmental effects of alternatives for WS involvement in bird damage management (BDM) in Massachusetts. Wildlife damage management (WDM) is the science of reducing damage or other problems associated with wildlife, and are recognized as an integral part of wildlife management (The Wildlife Society 2010). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) program is the federal agency authorized to protect American resources from damage associated with wildlife (the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329-331, 7 U.S.C. 426c)). Human/wildlife conflict issues are complicated by the wide range of public responses to wildlife and wildlife damage. What may be unacceptable damage to one person may be a normal cost of living with nature to someone else. An individual person will have a unique definition of damage. However, the use of the term “damage” will consistently be used to describe situations where the individual person has determined the losses associated with wildlife is actual damage requiring assistance (i.e., has reached an individual threshold). WS’ activities are conducted to prevent or reduce wildlife damage to agricultural crops and livestock, private and public property and lands, industrial and natural resources, and threats to public health and safety on private and public lands in cooperation with federal, state and local agencies, tribes, private organizations, and individuals. The WS program uses an integrated wildlife damage management (IWDM) approach (WS Directive 2.1051) in which a combination of methods may be used or recommended to reduce wildlife damage. These methods may include non-lethal techniques like alteration of cultural practices, habitat management, repellents, frightening devices, and physical exclusion to prevent or reduce damage. The reduction of wildlife damage may also require removal of individual animals, reducing the local animal populations through lethal means. In some instances, the goal may be to eradicate an invasive species. Program activities are not based on punishing offending animals but are conducted to reduce damage and risks to human and livestock health and safety, and are used as part of the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992). WS is a cooperatively funded, service-oriented program that receives requests for assistance with wildlife damage management from private and public entities, including tribes and other governmental agencies. As requested, WS cooperates with land and wildlife management agencies to reduce wildlife damage effectively and efficiently in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between WS and other agencies. WS chose to prepare this EA to facilitate planning, interagency coordination and the streamlining of program management, and to clearly communicate with the public the analysis of individual and cumulative impacts. In addition, this EA has been prepared to evaluate and determine if there are any potentially significant or cumulative impacts from the proposed damage management program. 1The WS Policy Manual (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlifedamage) provides guidance for WS personnel to conduct wildlife damage management activities through Program Directives. WS Directives referenced in this EA can be found in the manual but will not be referenced in the Literature Cited Appendix. 4 1.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this EA is to evaluate cumulatively the individual projects conducted by WS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Massachusetts to manage damage and threats to agricultural resources, property, natural resources, and threats to humans associated with the bird species listed in Appendix C. Of the species listed in Appendix C, European starlings, herring gulls, Canada geese, American crows, house sparrows, mallards, ring-billed gulls, common grackles, great black-backed gulls, mourning doves, barn swallows, American robins, rock pigeons, tree swallows, snow buntings, American black ducks, wild turkeys, turkey vultures, brown-headed cowbirds, red-winged blackbirds, horned larks, bank swallows, double-crested cormorants, and red-tailed hawks are responsible for the majority of