California officials have released a report to analyze wildlife damage management in the state.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and Wildlife Services-California (WS-California)—a state office within USDA’s Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service—are seeking comment on a joint environmental impact report and environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) to analyze current and proposed future wildlife damage management (WDM) activities in California.
This evaluation will assess the environmental impacts of wildlife damage management activities conducted by both entities and California counties under CDFA’s proposed WDM Program.
Under the proposed program, CDFA will take on a new role in statewide activities. This involves creating a formal program that uses an adaptive and integrated approach, encourages cooperator/requestor participation and provides technical assistance for lethal and non-lethal wildlife damage management techniques.
Additionally, WS-California will continue to offer technical assistance on wildlife damage management techniques, including lethal and non-lethal approaches, and play a role in protecting threatened and endangered species and managing wildlife hazards at airports as part of the program.
According to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, in 2010, 1,400 adult cattle and 8,200 calves were lost due to predation in California, totaling about $4.1 million. The predation was mainly caused by coyotes (57%), followed by mountain lions or bobcats (32.5%), dogs (8.5%) and the remainder by bears and other animals. The report also noted in 2009, 6,800 adult sheep and 8,200 lambs were reported lost due to predation resulting in a loss of about $1.4 million.
Alternatives
For this EIR/EIS, five alternatives were developed.
Alternative 1 — Under this alternative, there would be no new establishment of CDFA or county-led wildlife damage management activities, with no inclusion of emergency/rapid response activities. WS-California would maintain its role in wildlife damage management, encompassing threatened and endangered species protection and airport management.
The current WS-California wildlife damage management activities would continue, with the agency providing information on preventative and reactive damage management to reduce losses. In coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), WS-California would assist with depredation investigations on suspected wildlife predation on livestock.
Alternative 2 — In Alternative 2, the CDFA, counties and WS-California would offer help with lethal and non-lethal techniques and non-lethal operational assistance. They would not provide lethal wildlife damage management assistance except for human health and safety, companion animal health and safety, protection of threatened and endangered species and airport wildlife damage management.
The components of Alternative 2 involve collaboration, identification, education, training, technical assistance, non-lethal operational wildlife damage management and monitoring.
As outlined in Alternative 2, producers would continue to receive non-lethal and lethal technical assistance, as outlined in Alternative 1. CDFA, counties and WS-California would provide the producer with guidance on suitable non-lethal and lethal methods to address the damage through activities such as property visits, written communication, telephone conversations or presentations to groups.
Alternative 3 — CDFA, counties and WS-California would offer technical assistance focusing solely on non-lethal operational assistance in management. Lethal operational wildlife damage management assistance would not be part of this alternative. Emergency and rapid response activities could be included, but without lethal methods.
Alternative 4 — Alternative 4 is being considered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this alternative, participating counties have the option to set up an assistance program or cost-sharing initiative that offers monetary compensation to affected cooperators/requestors (producers).
The emphasis is on funding enhanced protection from damaging wildlife, such as upgrading fencing or acquiring guard animals. Notably, Alternative 4 does not involve operational assistance from CDFA/WS-California, and private entities retain the right to independently carry out lethal wildlife damage management in compliance with state and federal laws.
Alternative 4 would establish a funding source, such as the county level or private grants, with management of the reimbursement at the county level. This involves establishing a protocol to decide which wildlife damage management cases qualify for funding, determining the appropriate allocation of funds (e.g., discretionary uses or specific measures like purchasing fencing, livestock protection animals and scare devices), and specifying the amounts and types of reimbursement (e.g., cost-share).
WS-California cannot implement Alternative 4 as they are legally mandated to safeguard American agriculture, and there is no legal authorization or funding at the federal level for a reimbursement program, the agency said.
Alternative 5 — Alternative 5 does not involve establishing or formalizing a CDFA wildlife damage management program. Additionally, WS-California would not provide technical or operational assistance related to wildlife damage management methods mentioned in the Proposed Project/Project Action and Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Moreover, Alternative 5 does not include financial reimbursements outlined in Alternative 4. Instead, other entities, such as Tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, CDFW, counties, private contractors and/or other non-federal agencies would handle potential wildlife damage management under Alternative 5.
Comment period
The California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) wrote in the Jan.15 edition of its Legislative Bulletin they are hopeful the draft EIS/EIR will solve CEQA concerns that have spawned numerous lawsuits, resulting in some counties terminating their compensation programs.
CCA stated they will thoroughly review the draft EIS/EIR and provide input before the comment period deadline.
Comments will be accepted for the draft EIR/EIS until March 12, and a copy can be found at californiawdm.org. Comments can be emailed to info@CaliforniaWDM.org or mailed to California WDM, 2121 Broadway P.O. Box 188797 Sacramento, CA, 95818. A virtual public comment meeting will be held on Feb. 8. Registration is available at tinyurl.com/2vhatmcy. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
