ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage to Resources and Threats to Human Health and Safety Caused by Birds in the Commonwealth of Virginia Prepared by: United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services In consultation with: United States Department of Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program Region 5 July 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS………………………………………………………………………………….……………3 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION……………………..………………………….4 1.1Introduction 1.2Purpose 1.3Need for Action 1.4Decisions to be Made 1.5Scope of this Environmental Assessment 1.6Relationship of this Document to Other Environmental Documents 1.7Authority of Federal and State Agencies 1.8Compliance with Laws and Statutes CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES………………………………………36 2.1Affected Environment 2.2Issues Addressed in the Analysis of the Alternatives 2.3Issues Considered but not in Detail, with Rationale 2.4Issues Considered but not in Detail, Specific to the Proposed Action, with Rationale CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES……………………………………………………………………….52 3.1Description of the Alternatives 3.2Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail with Rationale 3.3Standard Operating Procedures for Bird Damage Management 3.4Additional Standard Operating Procedures Specific to the Issues CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES………………………………………….….61 4.1Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Impacts of Issues Analyzed in Detail 4.2Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action / No Action Alternative CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED………………...…………154 5.1List of Preparers and Reviewers 5.2 List of Persons Consulted APPENDIX A: LITERATURE CITED…………………………………………………………….…155 APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL BIRD SPECIES THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED BY WILDLIFE SERVICES…………………………………………………………………………………...…189 APPENDIX C: METHODS AVAILABLE FOR PREVENTING, REDUCING AND ELIMINATING DAMAGE AND THREATS ASSOCIATED WITH BIRDS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA………………………………………………………..190 APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE…….……..206 APPENDIX E: SPECIES LISTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA……………..209 2 ACRONYMS APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AQDO Aquaculture Depredation Order AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association BBS Breeding Bird Survey BCR Bird Conservation Region CBC Christmas Bird Count CE Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO2 Carbon Dioxide CY Calendar Year EA Environmental Assessment EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration FDA U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year MA Methyl anthranilate MANEM Mid-Atlantic / New England / Maritimes Region Waterbird Working Group MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MIS Management Information System MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NWRC U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center PBCR Pelagic Bird Conservation Region PBR Potential Biological Removal PRDO Public Resource Depredation Order USGS U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SOPs Standard Operating Procedures VDACS Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries WS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 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 in Virginia. Wildlife damage management is the science of reducing damage or other problems associated with wildlife, and is 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. The relationship in American culture of wildlife values and wildlife damage can be summarized in this way: Wildlife has either positive or negative values, depending on varying human perspectives and circumstances (Decker and Goff 1987). Wildlife is generally regarded as providing economic, recreational and aesthetic benefits . and the mere knowledge that wildlife exists is a positive benefit to many people. However . the activities of some wildlife may result in economic losses to agriculture and damage to property . Sensitivity to varying perspectives and values is required to manage the balance between human and wildlife needs. In addressing conflicts, wildlife managers must consider not only the needs of those directly affected by wildlife damage but a range of environmental, sociocultural and economic considerations as well. WS’ activities are conducted to prevent or reduce wildlife damage to agricultural, industrial, and natural resources, and to property, livestock, 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 approach (WS Directive 2.105) in which a combination of methods may be used or recommended to reduce wildlife damage. 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. Pursuant to the NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, WS and the United States 4 Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are preparing this EA1 to document the analyses associated with proposed federal actions and to inform decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives capable of avoiding or minimizing significant effects. This EA will also serve as a decision-aiding mechanism to ensure that the policies and goals of the NEPA are infused into the actions of each agency. 1.2 PURPOSE WS and the USFWS2 continue to receive requests for assistance or anticipate receiving requests for assistance to resolve or prevent damage occurring to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and reduce or prevent threats to human health and safety associated with several bird species, including double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), merlin (Falco columbarius), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), sanderling (Calidris alba), Bonaparte’s gull (Chroicocephalus philadelphia), laughing gull (Leucophaeus atricilla), ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), herring gull (Larus argentatus), great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus), barn owl (Tyto alba), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), snowy owl (Nyctea scandiaca), barred