ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REDUCING BIRD DAMAGE IN THE STATE OF VERMONT In cooperation with: United States Department of Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program Region 5 The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Prepared by: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES November 2015 1 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 ......................................................................................................... 21 1.5 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 21 1.6 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS DOCUMENT TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS . 24 1.7 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 25 1.8 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 34 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH BIRD DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................... 36 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................... 41 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 46 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 51 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR BIRD DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ............ 53 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...... 54 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................. 56 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS .............................................................................. 104 5.2 LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED ............................................................................................ 104 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................... 105 APPENDIX B METHODS AVAILABLE FOR USE OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE WS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 122 APPENDIX C BIRD SPECIES EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......... 130 APPENDIX D THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT ARE FEDERALLY LISTED IN THE STATE .............................................................................................................. 133 APPENDIX E THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT ARE STATE LISTED..........135 2 ACRONYMS APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AQDO Aquaculture Depredation Order AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association BBS Breeding Bird Survey BDM Bird Damage Management CBC Christmas Bird Count CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSA Cooperative Service Agreement 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 IWDM Integrated Wildlife Damage Management LGLSP Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain MA Methyl Anthranilate MANEM Mid-Atlantic / New England / Maritimes MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 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 PIF Partners in Flight PRDO Public Resource Depredation Order ROD Record of Decision SOP Standard Operating Procedure T&E Threatened and Endangered USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VAAFM Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets VFWD Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department VDH Vermont Department of Health VOGA Vermont Outdoor Guide Association 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 Vermont. Wildlife damage management (WDM) 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. 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, industrial and natural resources, 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 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 Vermont to manage damage and threats to agricultural resources, property, natural resources, and threats to humans associated with the bird species listed in Appendix C. This EA will assist in determining if the proposed management of bird damage could have a significant impact on the human environment based on previous activities conducted and based on the anticipation of receiving additional requests for assistance. Because the goals of WS and the USFWS are to conduct a coordinated program in accordance with plans and objectives developed to reduce damage, and because those goals and objectives are to provide